WikiLeaks Reveals 'America's
Dark Face' to the World
"The
way American diplomats have disparagingly portrayed and labeled world leaders
in their cables speak of a disdainful hubris and racism. … But what is most
important to Pakistanis is what the published cables say about us. And that is
very discomforting and troubling."
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari says U.S. diplomatic cables that reveal the Saudi king calling him 'rotten' are an attempt to create 'misperceptions.'
The U.S. internal diplomatic
correspondence put out by whistleblower WikiLeaks, while quite revealing, were not
as explosive as once projected. Perhaps that's because its own site was hacked
and that it released the cables to a group of selected newspapers.
And these publications
apparently picked out what was in line with their own preferences, fixations
and choices. It is perhaps for this selectivity that the fuller extent of
American diplomatic machinations and exploits has yet to come to the fore. Not
even the State Department’s not-infrequent attempts to fan dissent and
subversion in certain countries - as it is now doing in Iran with the complete backing
of Congress - have come to light.
Nevertheless, whatever they've
put out so far may create a certain amount of diplomatic difficulty for America
and exacerbate deeply-held animosities, say, between Iranians and Arabs - Saudis
in particular. The information nonetheless shows America’s dark face to the
world.
Assessing a host country’s leaders
and domestic affairs is certainly a universally-recognized part of diplomatic
activity. Internal diplomatic correspondence is usually very frank, outspoken, candid,
and at times, harsh in tone and tenor. But the way American diplomats have disparagingly
portrayed and labeled world leaders in their cables speaks of a disdainful
hubris and racism. And, although it is rarely discussed, spying on host
countries is also a widely practiced diplomatic norm. And it isn't only
diplomats that report any valuable information they come across to their bosses
back home: diplomatic missions harbor undercover officials who specifically
indulge in espionage and, in some cases, especially in America’s, subversion
and tasks that fan dissent.
But tasking American
diplomats to snitch on senior U.N. officials it is quite appalling, particularly
given that the world body was long ago turned into a diplomatic arm of America.
Indeed, Saddam Hussein once charged that U.N. weapons inspectors sent to
monitor Iraq's nuclear facilities practically acted as U.S. agents, spying on
his military and assets. So he expelled them. The Americans protested
vehemently and shot back that this was a ploy to obstruct U.N. inspections of
his nuclear and chemical weapons stockpiles. Years later, however, a U.N.
inspector - an American citizen - confessed that the inspectors were indeed told
to spy on Iraq's military. He now lives in exile - in Switzerland.
That said, what is most
important to Pakistanis is what the published cables say about us. And that is
very discomforting and troubling. What Saudi King Abdullah had said about
President Asif Zardari is sure to annoy his party loyalists. But given Zardari's
utter failure to live up to expectations and even remotely attend to the
nagging distresses and woes of the people, the public at large is unlikely to
care.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
[Editor's Note: Saudi
King Abdullah reportedly asserted Mr. Zardari was an obstacle to Pakistan’s
progress, saying, "When the head is rotten, it affects the whole body.”]
However, the people are sure
to respond with anger and outrage to America's vile attempts to wrench enriched
uranium away from a Pakistani research reactor. Such attempts only serve to corroborate
the popular perception that Americans are in fact after our nuclear assets and determined
to deprive us of that which is critical to our national security. Such attempts
also corroborate another popular perception: while the Americans and their Western
cohorts are hell-bent to denuclearize us, they are going all-out to strengthen
nuclear India. For example, agreeing to nuclear sales deals despite India being
the region's original nuclear proliferator and a non-signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
[Editor's Note: The
New York Times reported yesterday that the U.S. diplomatic cables released
by WikiLeaks revealed a dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since
2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful,
to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that
American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device.
In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing
to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani
official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they
certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear
weapons,’ he argued.”]
And not many will be pleased
with our leaders for rejecting America's demand to remove enriched uranium from
a research reactor with the silly plea, “if the local media got word of the fuel
removal, they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s
nuclear weapons.”
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Why indeed did our leadership
speak in such unworthy, lowly and alien terms? Aren't these our leading officials?
Why was their refusal so subservient and servile? Couldn’t they have refused
boldly, telling the uncouth Americans to get out or have their tongues pulled
out from the roots if they utter such words again? Haven’t we acquired our
nuclear prowess in the face of stiff resistance and the vile conspiracies of Americans
and their Western cohorts? Who are they to tell us what to do with regard to
our nuclear assets? One hopes our officials will be very harsh and very hard if
Americans come up with such an obscene demand ever again.
