One thing that can be said with certainty: Wikileaks is changing things.
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.
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,
Fox News ran an article proclaiming that,
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.
documents are an authentic representation of their statements and beliefs,
but that does not imply that they are an accurate representation of reality.
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.
For example, one ‘revelation’ that made its way around the world was the insistence of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah to America to,
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 neighbors.
This too, is propaganda. Again, we need to contextualize.
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.
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 favorites 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.
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.
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
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.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated,
The Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, claimed that the documents “show a more accurate view of reality.” 
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
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 neighbors, 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.
However, compared to the American favorites 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.
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
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.” 
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.” 
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:
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,
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 pointedly asked why a type of behavior 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,
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,
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:
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
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’:
The term was coined by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and refers to the fact that, as Brzezinski wrote:
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:
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
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.
His analysis of the 'global political awakening' is useful because of his representation 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:
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,
In other words, Brzezinski favors an increased and expanded ‘internationalization’, not surprising considering he laid the intellectual foundations of the Trilateral Commission.
He explains that,
This is truly a new global reality:
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.
Instead, Brzezinski argues, America must be central in constructing a system of global governance,
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
[The Global Political Awakening and the New
World Order - 24 June 2010]
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.
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.
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 rumors 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 rumors 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.
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 favor, 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.
The question is:
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
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):
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.
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).
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
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
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
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
Assange further explained some of his perspectives regarding the influence of and reactions to Wikileaks, stating that the Chinese:
In the interview, Assange turned to the issue of the Internet and community media:
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
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.
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.’
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.
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.
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,
Appendix of ‘Revelations’ and ‘Vindications’
- A Call to Action for
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:
Wikileaks has exposed that notion as a falsity, and it should be an
issue that is expanded upon.
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,
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.” 
Again, evidence for how elites despise true representations of
democracy and freedom.
He stated that to the U.S. Ambassador that:
Further, Prince Andrew, the ‘Duke of York’,
On the way out of the meeting, one British businessman said to the U.S. Ambassador,
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’?
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.
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,
As one U.S. diplomatic cable explained, the British royals,
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.
Saudi royal threw a lavish party for Prince Charles in Saudi Arabia with the
help of an unnamed British businessman.
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 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,
Further, three other Arab states,
...are listed as other chief terrorist financiers.
As the Guardian put it,
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
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
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
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.
Iraqi government officials, reported the Guardian,
In a cable written by the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, it was explained that,
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,
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,
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.
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.”
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
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,
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,
As Saleh told John Breannan in September of 2009,
Regarding the December 21 strike that killed the innocent civilians, a cable explained,
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.
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. Thus, the CIA rewarded the financiers of 9/11 by increasing
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 neighbors being Afghanistan, China, India and Iran.
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 neighbors 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
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 favors 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.
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.
Make no mistake, this is an opportunity for the spread of truth, not a distraction from it.
Treat it accordingly.