A missing WikiLeaks?

By Dr Ghayur Ayub

Tickers on different news channels were running fast at the bottom of the television screen. It was the evening before the next batch of WikiLeaks were due for publication. I made sure to buy The Guardian - one of five newspapers publishing the documents. With remote control in hand, I was browsing through Sky News, BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and Press TV. To the best of my recollection, it was Sky News which caught my eye. The breaking news referred to a planned Israeli nuclear attack on two American cities, which were to be linked to Pakistan. America would have had a cause to respond in kind and take out Pakistani nuclear sites. I couldn’t believe my eyes! I rewound the news to double check what I had just read. Thinking details would be published in the Guardian newspaper the following day I did not record it. Later, I rang a friend and told him about the mind-boggling news. The bizarre news kept me awake most of the night.

The next day I got the newspaper and went through it page by page. To my surprise, the “ticker news” could not be seen anywhere. I read it a couple of times but failed to find the particular piece. I could not understand how the newspaper missed such an important part of the leak? In pursuit, I opened the WikiLeaks’ website and browsed through it carefully; no luck again. Then, I Googled relevant questions pertaining to Israel; still no luck! To make it more direct, I refined my search based on the information I had read on television. Again no reference. The news had just disappeared from cyberspace. Doubts started emerging whether I had really seen that segment which was embedded in my mind despite me vividly remembering its content. In fact I called a friend about it. So what happened to the news?

The only explanation I can think of is that the news item must have leaked out by mistake and then swiftly been retracted. After all it is common knowledge that the leaks are selective. I have no idea who else watched it during that brief period it was on the air. Was it a coincidence that at that very moment I was browsing through the channels? Many would say yes. But I don’t believe in coincidences. I call them part of ‘cosmic language’. All it means is that nature talks to us in its own language that has no syllabi. I may write on this subject some other time. But for now I had to find the ‘missing leak’.

During my search I came to know about a basic fact that even the embarrassment factor was not that high for the politicians and foreign diplomats as they all understood each other and routinely lied which explains the uniformity in their reaction to the leaks by denying them. It also became apparent that the leaks related to Israel were primarily Iran-centric and that Iran’s nukes pose an “existentialist threat” to Israel. It was interesting to find that before the leaks were publicised Natanyahu did not think they would seriously damage Israel’s position. No wonder when he visited jubilantly Tel Aviv’s Beit Sokolow, the home of the Israeli Journalists Association, for the prime minister's annual meeting with the Editors Committee, he was all smiles. This is the place where Ben Gurion used to hold secret meetings. Last year he skipped the event; however, this time around it was different because of the WikiLeaks publication. He showed up to display his political command by sticking to his public agenda and sending a message to the White House of what was befalling President Obama. As if he knew there was now no fear that Washington would persist on the question of a settlement freeze or to accelerate negotiations on withdrawal from the territories. He felt confident that the settlement issue would take a back seat and it was time to press on other issues such as extremism in Arab and Muslim world.

At Beit Sokolow he announced “no one will now be able to allege that Israel is acting irresponsibly”. Then he spoke about the Arab leaders urging them to “speak openly about Iran what they have been whispering to the Americans” Speaking his language in an interview with Time magazine, Julian Assange sent an identical message "We can see the Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin] Natanyahu coming out with a very interesting statement that leaders should speak in public like they do in private whenever they can".

Natanyahu was proud that Israel maintained information security and that sensitive conversations were not conveyed in diplomatic cables but in face-to-face meetings or via secure telephones. For a split second that “mysterious ticker” flashed back and I thought if only Natanyahu knew that a blunder had been committed by someone somewhere exposing Israel's intentions to start a nuclear nightmare!

He seemed content with the outcome of WikiLeaks, ignoring what Huseyin Celik, the deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's AKP Party had said about Israel. Celic accused Israel of engineering the leaks, questioning how Israel could announce before the release that it would not suffer from its publication. He queried, “How did they know that?”

Instead, Natanyahu was quoting Arab leaders from Egypt, Jordan and Persian Gulf States, that they were also fearful of the Iranian threat. He was right in his statement because Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi warned, “Iran will threaten Israel's existence should it go nuclear." He called Ahmadinejad a “Hitler”, proposing that “if air strikes will not do the job in Iran the ground troops should be sent in.” Similarly, Saudi King Abdullah wanted the U.S. to “cut off the head of the snake”. Another UAE leader gave his reasons for Iran-bashing by saying that “Iran is establishing ‘sleeper emirates’ across the Muslim world including south Lebanon, Gaza, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia with the mother of all ‘emirates’ in southern Iraq and now in Yemen.” Similar sentiments were heard from other pro-American leaders in the Arab world. One Israeli official stated, “the Arab countries are pushing United States towards military action more forcefully than Israel”.

As opposed to these reports the American intellectual Noam Chomsky cited a Brookings Institution poll that 80 percent of Arabs consider Israel as the main threat followed by the US at 77 percent. Only 10 percent rated Iran as a danger. He concluded by stating, “When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts - Clinton and the media - have drawn.” According to another report, the Arab rulers “dare follow the American line completely, particularly if this includes a strike against Iran if they did, they’d risk popular revolts”.

I found nothing but Iran-centric WikiLeaks in the Jerusalem Post and other Israeli newspapers. They were reminiscent of the "Zimmermann Telegram" during World War I. The declassified documents of history tell us that in early 1917 the British cryptography unit ("Room 40" ) decoded a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to his country's embassy in Mexico City proposing that the Mexicans launch a war against United States and retake Texas. The British showed the telegram to American diplomats. It prompted Congress and President Woodrow Wilson to declare war on Germany which contributed to Germany's defeat at the end of 1918.

A few months after this episode of the "Zimmermann Telegram" the Bolshevik Revolution took place in Russia. The new leadership wanted to declassify the documents of the Czar's Foreign Ministry. The task was given to Leon Trosky - the people's commissar for foreign affairs. One of the documents revealed the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement in which Britain and France planned how they would carve up the Ottoman Empire and also promised a hefty slice to Russia which desired Istanbul and the Black Sea straits. What if the secrets were revealed at that time? Would it have changed history?

The point I am trying to make is that exposure of secrets can influence events if they appear at the right moment, as in the case of the Zimmermann Telegram. So what could be the reason for WikiLeaks and how will it affect short- and long-term relations amongst Muslim countries vis-a-vis pro-Israel lobbies in America. Would Natanyahu be resting in a comfort zone and constantly pressurising Obama to stop interfering in the internal matters of Israel especially the settlements issue had the 'missing leak' been circulated? Here comes the million dollar question. Is there a 'missing leak' exposing Israel's heinous motives despite the leaked documents stating that “there is no Israel lobby involvement to involuntarily force US in a war to serve Jewish interests” and that “the world opinion is wielding towards declaring Iran as the head of a snake that must be cut off....” Not many would believe in the existence of such a 'missing leak'. Even my own lawyer daughter thinks I may have misread the news. But deep down, I know what I saw and read that evening. Perhaps 50 years from now this “ticker news” may show up in a slue of declassified documents similar to Zimmerman's secret telegram. The leaked telegram changed the course of history but the 'missing leak' cannot; as long as it remains missing.

Is the US losing Africa to China?

The WikiLeaks cables have revealed that the US is closely monitoring China’s activity in Africa, which causes serious concern in American diplomatic circles. The growing flow of Chinese investments is one of the particular causes of concern. The fault with the Chinese is that they invest in African countries’ economies without interfering in their internal affairs, while Western powers put forward demands of “good governance”, whatever this may mean.

China is "a very aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals," writes Johnnie Carson, US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs.

The cables further “reveal” the fact that "China is not in Africa for altruistic reasons. China is in Africa primarily for China."

And further Mr. Carson adds: "A secondary reason for China's presence is to secure votes in the United Nations from African countries."

The very wording of the diplomatic cables is quite telling, although the cables reveal nothing at all. The fact that, unlike major Western powers, China has been using the so called «soft power» tactics” in its efforts to penetrate the regions that for a long time have been looked upon as exclusive Western domain is no new to any international observer. And Africa in this respect is not the only region. Lately, there has been massive Chinese activity even in Latin America that has for a long time been regarded as “US soft belly”.

The statement that “China is not in Africa for altruistic reasons. China is in Africa primarily for China," is even more ridiculous. Isn’t it the primary purpose of any country’s diplomacy “to be there for their country?” Or, maybe the US Assistant Secretary means to say that the US presence in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is “for altruistic reasons?”

In fact, the American concern is for the most part very well understandable. China is using its increasing political power and weighty foreign currency assets in order to establish itself as a major partner of “Third World” countries. At the same time China does not seem to be as ideologically blindfolded as the West and primarily the US, so as to demand that the country invested in should follow any prescribed political and ideological line. Hence, China DOES maintain relations with such regimes as Mugabe in Zimbabwe or basher in Sudan.

What may be even more important is the fact that by all political forecasts for the 21st century, it is going to be the “China Age” in global politics. Therefore the major superpower of today, the US, feeling that its grip on world affairs is loosening, shows natural concern over the rise of China.

The recent events around the Korean Peninsula are just one more example of the confrontation which is sure to dominate the 21^st century. North or South Korea, Taiwan and even Japan mean little for US diplomacy. But all these countries are pawns in a “Big Chess Game” played by the two main gamblers – the US and China. Therefore both players are determined to inject maximum power into their allies in the region – just to show the opponent that they are not ready to submit.

Africa has for a long time been basically neglected by the major players. And the Chinese were only too wise to use the opportunity. Basically, they have outmaneuvered the US in this region. And, what has not yet been “revealed” by WikiLeaks, but what seems inevitable, is that they have firmly established their influence in a region where until recently the US monopoly wasn’t even questioned, that is, Latin America. The Chinese “soft power” policy has yielded such results that will be very difficult to throw down by means of conventional diplomacy.

In any case, it is rather doubtful that the US diplomats should blame the unfavorable course of events on any outside power. While China is using its“soft power” policy, investing in road-building, enterprises on social infrastructure, the US has stuck to a completely different policy of bombing, overthrowing the ruling regimes, destroying roads, enterprises and social infrastructure, of which Iraq and Afghanistan are the best (or, more accurately, the worst) examples.

So, is there reason to wonder why Third World countries tend to welcome Chinese diplomacy in a much more cordial way than that of the United States?

China in Africa: Why the US worried

WikiLakes the most recent document issued by the US on the Chinese presence in Africa was concerned.

WikiLakes in England`s Guardian newspaper published a cable the US  Assistant Secretary of African Affairs of China said about Johnny Carson that he was very aggressive and destructive opponent who does not have any moral values.

Carson added that the China vote in the UN wants to Africa. A second cable also has said that China bribes to get contracts in Kenya also have support. Cable according to US Ambassador in Kenya had warned if not stop corruption in Kenya, they can home in violence is. 

The US is closely monitoring China's expanding role in Africa, the latest secret US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks reveal.

A cable from February quotes a senior US official in Nigeria's main city, Lagos, describing China as "aggressive and pernicious".
US diplomatic cables from Africa also reveal claims by oil giant Shell that it infiltrated Nigerian ministries.
Wikileaks has so far released more than 1,100 of 251,000 secret US cables.
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the latest documents provide a fascinating insight into Washington's rivalry with Beijing in Africa.
China has massively expanded its economic ties to countries across Africa in recent years, sparking criticism from human rights groups, who accuse Beijing of helping some of Africa's worst governments stay in power.
China adopts a policy of not interfering in domestic politics, while Western countries sometimes make aid conditional on "good governance".
The cable, published by the Guardian newspaper, quotes Johnnie Carson, US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, who had been meeting oil company representatives in Lagos.

He describes China as "a very aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals".
China is not in Africa for altruistic reasons," he says. "China is in Africa primarily for China."
He adds: "A secondary reason for China's presence is to secure votes in the United Nations from African countries."
He argues that China is not seen in Washington as a military or security threat at the moment. But he says there are, what he calls "tripwires" in Africa for the US when it comes to China.
"Have they signed military base agreements? Are they training armies? Have they developed intelligence operations? Once these areas start developing then the US will start worrying," he says.
"The United States will continue to push democracy and capitalism while Chinese authoritarian capitalism is politically challenging. The Chinese are dealing with the [Zimbabwean president] Mugabe's and [Sudanese president] Bashir's of the world, which is a contrarian political model."

'Bribes' Another US cable talks about China's military and intelligence support for the government of Kenya.
A Chinese enterprise is said to have won a contract to supply telephone monitoring equipment to Kenya after bribes were paid while on a trip to China.
The name of the individual concerned has been edited out.
Our diplomatic correspondent says the cable provides a case study of China's role in Africa.
Its influence in Kenya is said to have grown rapidly, with Chinese involvement in a host of infrastructure projects as well as collaboration with Kenya's National Security and Intelligence Service.
'Secondments' The secret cables also say that Shell's top executive in Nigeria at the time, Ann Pickard, told US diplomats that the oil company had good access to government information.
A cable dated 20 October 2009 outlines a conversation Ms Pickard had with the then US ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Renee Sanders.
When Ms Sanders asked the Shell executive about Chinese business interests in Nigeria, Ms Pickard told her that she knew that Nigerian officials had found Chinese offers not good enough.
"She said the [government of Nigeria] had forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries," Ms Sanders reported.
The dispatches also show that Shell exchanged intelligence with the US about militant activity in the oil-rich Niger Delta, where activists say local people have suffered environmental damage because of the oil industry without reaping its economic rewards.
The BBC's Caroline Duffield in Lagos says the picture of Shell's tentacles reaching into government and accessing secret documents will shock ordinary Nigerians.
Environmentalists have long claimed the oil giant exerts a powerful political grip on Nigeria's government. Our correspondent says they will see these cables as evidence supporting that argument.
A Shell spokesman told the BBC the company could not comment on a leaked cable containing the views of a private conversation.
Wikileaks says it intends to release all the secret US cables in its possession, although it could take months to do so.
The move has been strongly condemned by the US and other countries.