The WikiLeaks Dossier

In the face of an unprecedented campaign of US harassment and intimidation, the Internet-based WikiLeaks group is continuing its efforts to expose the predatory role of American foreign policy around the world, releasing secret diplomatic documents every day.

WikiLeaks has acquired over 250,000 leaked US diplomatic cables, most of them generated over the past five years, and it has posted about 700 of them so far on its web site, as well as turning over the entire cache to four news organizations in Europe. One of the four, the British daily Guardian, in turn gave access to the New York Times.

Material made public Sunday sheds light on the increasingly incendiary state of world relations, under conditions of deepening world economic crisis. In particular, the declining world power, the United States, is seeking to maintain its domination against the rise of rivals like China. This conflict is the focus of a State Department cable on March 24, 2009, describing a meeting between Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, then visiting Washington, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

According to the summary, Clinton complained during a luncheon discussion about the difficulty of the US taking action to curb China’s growing overseas influence, given the huge US balance of trade deficit with China and China’s massive stockpile of nearly $2 trillion in dollar-denominated assets, including Treasury bills. “How do you deal toughly with your banker?” she asked.

Rudd’s reply was eye opening. Describing himself as “a brutal realist on China,” he said that Australian intelligence agencies were paying close attention to China’s growing military strength, and that Australia was building up its naval forces as “a response to China’s growing ability to project force” in the south Pacific. He said the US and its allies should make efforts to integrate China into the US-dominated structure of state relations in the Asia-Pacific region, “while also preparing to deploy force if everything goes wrong.”

There is no record of Clinton’s response to this suggestion that a military conflict between the world’s two largest economies, both armed with nuclear weapons, was to be considered as a policy option. Nor was her reaction reported to another declaration by Rudd, that he had invited another nuclear-armed power, Russia, to join his proposed Asia-Pacific Community, in order to forestall any thoughts of a “Chinese Monroe Doctrine.” Rudd used that term as shorthand for an effort by China to exclude outside powers—like the United States—from the Asia-Pacific region.

The exchange is reminiscent of the secret discussions held among the Great Powers in the decades leading up to World War I and World War II, as they jockeyed for power and influence while building up their military forces for the ultimate test of force. In both periods, localized and regional tensions—in the Balkans, the Far East, and North Africa—became the spark of a global conflict.

The Middle East is one of the regions most likely to play the role of detonator today, with US forces already deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US and Israel openly threatening military action against Iran if economic sanctions fail to bring the regime in Tehran to heel.

Secret documents made public in summary form Sunday by the New York Times and the Guardian underscore the rising tensions in that region. A classified memo from Secretary of State Clinton in December 2009 complains that Saudi Arabia and the Arab sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf are the principal financiers of anti-American terrorist activity. “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” the memo declares.

This assessment is in sharp contrast to the public US focus on Afghanistan and the tribal territories of Pakistan as the base of Al Qaeda terrorism. The real purpose of the war in Afghanistan is to establish a dominant US role in Central Asia, the second largest source of world oil and gas exports.

As the Guardian notes in its coverage (but not the Times), the US complaints about the Saudi role in financing terrorism play second fiddle to US oil interests. The Guardianobserved: “The cables show that when it comes to powerful oil-rich allies, US diplomats save their concerns for closed-door talks, in stark contrast to the often pointed criticism meted out to allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Instead, officials at the Riyadh embassy worry about protecting Saudi oilfields from al-Qaida attacks.”

A second set of cables from the Mideast, summarized in the Guardian, cite the view of Iraqi government officials that Saudi Arabia, not Iran, poses the biggest threat of destabilization. A cable from the US ambassador in Baghdad, sent in September 2009, explains that Iraqi leaders viewed the Saudi objective as “to enhance Sunni influence, dilute Shia dominance and promote the formation of a weak and fractured Iraqi government.” The newspaper concludes that this dispatch, “feeds claims, prevalent after the 9/11 attacks, that religiously conservative, politically repressive Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, is the true enemy of the west.”

The accounts published by the “authorized” newspapers have undoubtedly been cleared in advance with the US State Department and the British Foreign Office to minimize the damage done to ongoing imperialist activities. These reports therefore fail to provide an adequate picture of the sheer skullduggery of American imperialism all over the world.

A few examples—all from a single weekend’s posting on the WikiLeaks site—give a glimpse of the systematic double-dealing that is the essence of the foreign policy of Washington. In each instance, the cable tells the truth, in direct contradiction to the public position of the US government, which is a lie.

September 9, 2009—A cable from the US embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan reports on a visit by two unnamed leaders of the Kashgai tribe in the adjacent region just across the Iranian border. Three months after the disputed Iranian presidential election, the two men note that while members of their tribe regarded opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi favorably, as a member of another minority ethnic group, the Lurs, “most Kashgai probably voted for Ahmadinejad, as a result of gratitude for improved health, education and infrastructure services and/or monetary inducements.”

This cable undermines the official US lie that Ahmadinejad “stole” the presidential election, one of the principal components of the ongoing propaganda campaign against Iran. The failure of opposition candidates Karroubi and Mirhossein Mousavi to win the vote in non-Persian northwest Iran was invariably cited as “proof” of official ballot-rigging. But the embassy cable demonstrates that the US government knew that their support in that region was weak.

December 26, 2009—A cable from the US embassy in Sana, Yemen relays the Yemeni foreign minister’s request that the Obama administration deny responsibility for US air strikes against alleged Al Qaeda targets in that country, which left dozens of civilians dead. Instead, the official urged the US to “highlight … indigenous counterterrorism capabilities.”

In other words, the Yemeni government asked the US government to help it lie to its own people, as well as the world, and Washington obliged.

January 15, 2010—A cable from the embassy in Morocco reports a successful US operation against Dadis Camara, leader of a military coup in the West African country of Guinea, who was receiving medical treatment at a Moroccan hospital. The State Department regarded Camara as less reliable than the officer who replaced him during his illness.

Moroccan officials put Camara on board a small plane, telling him he was going back to Guinea, but he was instead flown to Burkina Faso, a neighboring country, and placed under house arrest. In effect, Camara was kidnapped at the behest of the US government, which publicly denied any role in the affair.

Another series of cables from the US embassy in Paris in March 2010 tracks the visit of French President Sarkozy to former French colonies in Africa, noting shifts in French military and economic policy in that area. The cable notes that while in Niger, Sarkozy acted as a shill for the giant uranium monopoly AREVA.

This dispatch underscores one of the driving forces of foreign policy for all the imperialist powers: the financial interests of the giant corporations. The United States is no exception, as demonstrated by two more excerpts from the weekend postings on WikiLeaks:

The US embassy in Madrid noted the intercession of the American ambassador in January 2009 on behalf of General Electric, which had complained that the Spanish government “was not welcoming US bidders on procurement contracts.” When the Spanish Ministry of Defense awarded a contract to provide helicopter motors to the British-based Rolls Royce, Prime Minister Zapatero “overturned the decision and it was announced that GE had won the bid. The Ambassador is convinced that Zapatero personally intervened in the case in favor of GE.”

Another cable, sent in August 2007 by the US embassy in Bolivia, details attacks on the property of American corporations by the nationalist government of President Evo Morales: “A number of Evo’s recent actions and statements have been seen as anti-investment by the industries affected: to give only a few examples, the forced renegotiation of petroleum contracts, the nationalization of Glencore’s Vinto smelter, Evo’s stated intention to create a state energy and electricity company.”

The embassy adds, “One US investment which is vulnerable is San Cristobal mine, which is 65 percent owned by Apex Silver. San Cristobal would be particularly hard-hit by a bill currently in Congress, which would increase mining taxes.”

Imperialism is the global expression of finance capital, rapacious and predatory. This remains as true today as it was when Lenin wrote his classic work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1915. It is to the great credit of WikiLeaks that the organization has provided irrefutable documentation of this historical reality.

The Greens, whose parliamentary votes help keep the minority Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard in power, have maintained a deafening silence on the global witch-hunt that has been mounted against WikiLeaks’ editor and Australian citizen Julian Assange.

A matter of principle is at stake. Julian Assange has courageously risked his personal liberty, safety—and even his life—to publish documents provided to WikiLeaks by whistleblowers within the American political and military establishment. The web site has brought to the light of day evidence that the United States’ government is responsible for mass killings, torture, illegal spying on its international counterparts, and other crimes.

In retaliation, the US government of President Barack Obama is attempting to destroy WikiLeaks. It has declared the media organisation’s actions to be “criminal” and is trying to whip up an international lynch mob against Assange. American internet regulators have been pressured to close down WikiLeaks’ domain name, forcing it to establish a raft of new web addresses, such as www.wikileaks.ch, which currently remains accessible.

High ranking figures within the American political establishment, such as Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Lieberman, have called for Assange to be prosecuted and sent to prison. Others have made open death threats against him, including an advisor to the Canadian prime minister, who told a television audience that the web site editor should be “assassinated”.

Under such conditions of persecution and threats by a foreign government, any Australian citizen living overseas would expect to find sanctuary in the closest Australian embassy or consulate and support from diplomatic staff. The Australian government would be obligated to do everything it could to defend the democratic rights of its citizen.

Julian Assange, who is believed to be in England, has been denied any such protection. The Gillard Labor government has closed ranks behind its US ally and condemned Assange’s actions as “illegal”. Like the Obama administration, it is trying to fabricate criminal charges against him under Australian law, and Attorney-General Robert McClelland has declared the Labor government will provide “every assistance” to the prosecution of Assange in the US.

McClelland has also demanded that other governments detain the WikiLeaks’ editor and extradite him to Sweden, where he faces politically-motivated allegations of sexual misconduct. Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens has condemned the Swedish arrest warrant as “persecution and not a prosecution”.

Not a single member of the parliamentary Labor Party has raised one word of opposition to the witch-hunt being conducted against Assange or condemned the death threats made against him. The opposition Liberal and National parties have thrown their support behind Gillard, while the rural independents, Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and Bob Katter, have also kept their mouths firmly shut. Tellingly, they have been joined by Andrew Wilkie—a former whistleblower on the Iraq war lies, and now an independent supporting Labor. This is despite the fact that Wilkie told journalists on Wednesday that the Swedish charges of sexual misconduct against Assange “could be a set-up”. From the mass media through to civil liberties organisations, barely a voice can be heard speaking out in defence of Assange.

The silence of the Greens is, however, the most politically significant. Greens’ parliamentarians such as leader Bob Brown and MP Adam Bandt have spared no effort in presenting themselves as the “progressive force” in Australian politics, and staunch defenders of human rights and civil liberties. Yet they have felt no need to issue so much as a press statement in defence of Assange and WikiLeaks.

On Thursday, the WSWS contacted Bob Brown’s office, seeking an interview with him on his attitude to the persecution of WikiLeaks and Assange. Two days later, there has still been no response.

On Thursday, Brown took the time to arrange a press conference to condemn Japanese whaling, but made no mention of Assange. On Friday, Bandt issued a press release on workers’ Christmas pay, and gave an interview later in the day to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but, like Brown, made no condemnation of the Labor government’s blatant attacks on Assange’s democratic rights, and no calls for the Australian’s citizen’s defence.

Yesterday, Julian Assange issued a passionate statement over his treatment by the Australian government. In a posting to the British Guardian web site, he wrote:

“I am an Australian citizen and I miss my country a great deal. However, during the last weeks, the Australian prime minister Julia Gillard, and the attorney-general Robert McClelland, have made it clear that not only is my return impossible but they are actively working to assist the United States’ government in its attacks on myself and our people.”

Assange concluded: “This brings into question what does it mean to be an Australian citizen—does that mean anything at all? Or are we all to be treated like David Hicks at the first possible opportunity, merely so that Australian politicians and diplomats can be invited to the best US embassy cocktail parties?”

David Hicks was the young Australian detained by the US military in Afghanistan and illegally imprisoned without charge—with the endorsement of both the former Howard Liberal government and the Labor opposition—for almost six years in the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. In order to avoid indefinite detention in what he has since described as a hell on earth, Hicks was ultimately forced to plead guilty to fabricated terrorism charges and serve an additional period of imprisonment in Australia.

The fate of Julian Assange could be far worse.

For the Labor Party and the Australian ruling class as a whole, the liberty and lives of Australian citizens count for nothing when measured against their desire to preserve the Australia-US strategic alliance. Australian imperialism depends upon Washington’s backing to assert its economic and geo-political domination in what it regards as its “sphere of influence” in the South Pacific and South East Asia.

The silence of the Greens makes clear that, for all their posturing, they line up completely with the ruling elite when it comes to defending the crimes and secret machinations of the capitalist state.

The Australian Labor government has tried to deflect opposition to its support for the international campaign against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange by issuing a pro-forma statement that he has the rights of an Australian citizen.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland declared that Assange had “the right to return to Australia and also to receive consular assistance while he is overseas, if that is requested.”

The statement was issued in response to an online interview given by Assange to the British Guardian, in which he denounced his treatment by the Labor government, likening it to the treatment of Guantánamo Bay prison camp detainee David Hicks, who endured six years of illegal imprisonment.

In London, Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephen told the Australian Broadcasting Commission: “He has had no assistance and offers of assistance. … One has to question what the value of an Australian passport is, whether you agree with what he has done or not. One would think that having an Australian passport you would get some assistance, but thus far, I have to say the [Australian] high commissions and embassies have been shutting their doors to Julian Assange.”

In the week since Wikileaks began publishing some 250,000 US diplomatic cables, senior American political figures have repeatedly labelled Assange a “terrorist”. The Obama administration is attempting to manufacture criminal charges against the 39-year-old Australian, while the internet is full of death threats, forcing him to go into hiding. One American blog site has gone so as far as to call for the kidnapping of Assange’s son from his home in Australia, in order to “flush him out”.

The Australian Labor government has joined the international lynch mob. Prime Minister Julia Gillard labelled the publication of leaked US diplomatic cables as “illegal” and McClelland and Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd have announced that Australian police are investigating whether they can lay criminal charges against Assange and emphasised that Australia would assist any US prosecution.

Even the right-wing Liberal-National Party opposition has displayed more concern for legal procedure than the Labor leaders. Foreign affairs spokesperson Julie Bishop issued a statement that the government “has been quick to condemn Wikileaks” but there should not be a “rush to judgment until it can confirm that any Australian laws have been broken.”

Greens’ leader Bob Brown, who has refused to speak out against the campaign against Assange until now, issued a statement that Australian citizenship should be respected and Assange should be assured that his citizenship was safe.

“Mr Assange has had no criminal conviction and there is a lot of conjecture and juggling of claims against him,” he said.

But Brown, who postures as an alternative to the Liberal and Labor Parties, failed to denounce either the attacks on Assange or the actions of the Labor government. Nor did he defend the right of Wikileaks to publish its damning exposures of the US and other major powers. Instead he tried to downplay them by sowing illusions in the role of the Australian media.

“If this material had gone straight to one of the Australian newspapers they would have published it. The press works from leaks like this all the time,” he said.  The historical record, however, speaks otherwise. In the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Australian mass media were well aware of the real situation, but nevertheless endlessly regurgitated all the lies about “weapons of mass destruction.”

The latest round of Wikileaks disclosures has included the record of a 75-minute conversation between then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on March 24, 2009.

According to the US diplomatic cable, Rudd told Clinton that while seeking to engage diplomatically with China, the US should be “all the while also preparing to deploy force if everything goes wrong”. (See: “WikiLeaks continues exposure of predatory US foreign policy”)

Greens’ leader Brown defended Rudd’s comment and criticised concerns expressed by Julie Bishop that Rudd’s advice was “troubling.”

“Goodness me, I’d ask the question of Julie Bishop, should we abandon the defence forces? Are there no circumstances in which force may be used?” he declared to ABC radio.

Besides the discussion on China, the other significant revelation of the Rudd-Clinton talks was the offer by Rudd to send Australian special operations troops into Pakistan to assist in efforts to hunt down and kill insurgents fighting the US-led occupation of Afghanistan—providing the US could get an agreement for such actions from the Pakistani government.

Earlier cables had already exposed that American special forces units were in fact given permission to deploy inside Pakistan by the government of President Asif Ali Zardari, as part of an overall escalation, during 2009, of military operations against alleged insurgents inside the country. Thousands of people were slaughtered in the tribal agencies that border Afghanistan by Pakistani offensives, special operations death squads and American Predator drones.

The obvious question posed by Rudd and Clinton’s conversation is whether Australian forces were also deployed into Pakistan, without the knowledge of the Australian parliament and the population as a whole.

Rudd, who now serves as foreign minister in the Labor government, refused to comment on the cable over the weekend. He did, however, complain bitterly over Wikileaks’ exposure of imperialist diplomacy.

In Bahrain for conferences, Rudd told the Al Arabiya newspaper: “Diplomacy is done in secret because diplomacy seeks to solve problems for which there are no other public solutions… And when this is all put into the public domain, it’s a problem for all of us to combine our efforts to deal with some of our fundamental challenges.”

In other words, behind all the condemnations and threats against Julian Assange and Wikileaks is the fact that they have exposed the manner in which imperialist governments plot wars against their rivals and organise criminal operations against oppressed people behind the backs of the world’s population.