BEHIND THE SCENE
IS IT ALL AN AFFAIR ORCHESTRATED BY THOSE WHO WANT TO REACH NEAR THE TARGET BEFORE THEY HIT IT - POINT BLANK, COMMENTS INAM UL REHMAN
The first thing in journalism that is told to a student is to doubt the person who provides you the information. The sensation that WikiLeaks created in ‘releasing’ the ‘secret’ document of US diplomats, by and large, left journalists, in a confused mind. They didn’t ask: is WikiLeaks information correct and how can they judge the credibility of this web portal?
Those familiar with WikiLeaks before this ‘expose’ remember it showing Iraq footage in which US led occupational forces target journalists and civilian. The footage was not leaked but released by US troops just as Guantanamo torture pictures were released by them. Yet throughout the world these were given the name exposé ! There is small, clichéd question associated with Wikileakes but some times asking such questions answers complex things: Why were the cables leaked? Who is going to benefit from these leaks? What would be the implications of these leaks on the world? In the hysteria the journalists forgot or were made to look so and didn’t question. In a present world where media and advertisement are blurring lines it is not difficult to understand why WikiLeaks ‘expose’ became an overnight rage.
The Question of Credibility
How did one judge the cables on portal were credible? What is the criterion for judging WikiLeaks veracity? Who controls the net? Who manages the stuff coming on the Web? Journalism may be literature in hurry but rarely does it compromise on facts and credibility. For a journalist has nothing but credibility at stake. Yet very few journalists have put question mark on its credibility and the timing of the ‘leaks’. Just because there was hysteria created in the US WikiLeaks ‘expose’ becomes credible! But remember after occupying Iraq US invited the threat of anthrax being sent to their country by Iraq which later turned to be hoax like their previous invention of Iraq on possessing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to annex the oil rich Independent State.
Kissinger formula
In US there is Kissinger doctrine which says, "Our problems are the world´s problems". “The WikiLeaks documents reveal,” writes Pacific Free Press, “what the US government think of the world but the government cannot say it officially. Why they can't say it? Simply because America's opinion is not shared by the rest of the world. In practice it's a solo opinion.” Then it aptly puts it across when it says, “America holds the unique position of world's controller, how can its opinion be shared by somebody outside of its role?” (Wagging the WikiLeaks Tales, Dec 6).
All the ‘leaks’ released so far have not damaged US interest. In fact it has galvanized the solo power to get leverages from the other States. The ‘leaks’ are blackmailing to put it clearly.
US wants other States to fall in line. At the same time they reassure some of the vital allies of US that nothing is going to change by their new partnerships with other States. India, which in the past looked suspiciously at US, however, since the era of George Bush, started a new alliance with Uncle Sam. In 2009 just after Obama entered into the White House Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the first dignitary who was received by the US President. The euphoria was unprecedented in India over the invitation overlooking the fact, “India is viewed by the White House as mostly peripheral: important in itself no doubt,” wrote South Asian expert Ashyle Tellis on Nov, 23 2009, “but no longer a pressing geopolitical priority. The decision to exclude mentioning India in Obama’s recent Tokyo speech, where he articulated his vision for Asia, confirms this point,” (Ashley Tellis: Mr Singh goes to Washington, Yale Global, 23 Nov 2009).
In 2010 Obama came to India with a mission to get jobs secured for his citizens and a near about promise of seat in UN Security Council. Giving seat to India in UNSC means changing power balance in the region which US cannot afford as it would make Pakistan to rely more on China which in turn means a new arms race where US would not get lion’s share. Maintaining balance of power is a delicate thing which at times can backfire. In the 19th century United Kingdom—the undisputed super power then—concerned with the imbalance in power equation made sure that the diseased Ottoman Empire is not dismembered by the rising powers of Germany and France. As a result the sick Ottoman Empire survived in the 20th century and would have continued to rule but for Kamal Atturak. US is no different from UK and State policy is driven on hard national interest not on ideas.
There is no gainsaying that India is the largest market for any State. US businessmen for the past decade have strongly lobbied for India. Results of which are now obvious. But US partnership with any State is based on its dominance which India has objection against. It wants partnership on equal terms. The WikiLeaks was to bring India down to a position of subordinate. Already India’s relationship with China are strained. While Pakistan stayed away from the recent Nobel Peace Prize ceremony India couldn’t do the same. Due to its increasing proximity with US India again went against China. Already the military industrial complex in India is gaining momentum and US is getting the best business deals. And India is a home to world’s best business community and this burgeoning capital class hopes that State’s business policy may change the policies of other nations. But US wants India to behave like any other allied State. So the WikiLeaks `exposé' would mean more arms buying by India from US as Indians believe business interests may finally coerce US to accept it as an equal partner. Same is the case with Saudi Arabia. Just look at some of the ‘leaks’ involving Saudi Arabia: tirade against Iran and the pompous drinking and sleazy parties of ruling elites. All this comes under US doctrine of ‘necessary pain’ which is used to destabilise any State. And those familiar with US ‘New Middle East policy’ would easily realise the designs behind it. The ‘New Middle East policy’ was to redraw maps in Muslim countries including Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. The entry of Al Qaeda militia in Iraq thwarted their plan. Now they are looking other ways to make their sinister plan work.
However, the real exposé would have been the information that Indian military preparing missiles that could attack main Iranian cities. There is no mention of it although Stephen P. Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta in their latest book ‘Arming without Arms: India’s Military Modernisation’ (P 108) give description of that.
No leaks about Israel
Is there anything related to Israel? Almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East today are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas but you won’t find any ‘leaked’ cables about it! What about the political assassinations carried out by Israel and US? What about the support and funding received by the Sudan terrorists by CIA not figuring in it. It is these facts which render all leaks, that amount some 261 million words equivalent to 3,000 books, suspicious.
Writing in the Counter Punch Diary, Alexander Cockburn says: “The irony is that the thousands of diplomatic communications released by WikiLeaks contain no earth-shaking disclosures that undermine the security of the American empire. The reports in the official press invite,” he insists, “us to be stunned at the news that the King of Saudi Arabia wishes Iran was wiped off the map, that the US uses diplomats as spies, that Afghanistan is corrupt, also that corruption is not unknown in Russia!” (Julian Assange: Wanted by the Empire, Dead or Alive. Counter Punch Diary, Dec 3 -5, 2010).
‘Constructive Chaos’
By disclosing personal profiles and details of world leaders redacted by US diplomats Uncle Sam is creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence that would foster anarchy around the globe because they believe in ‘constructive chaos’ that helps them to get leverage. The constructive chaos helps the world’s policeman to decode many secrets. It is among chaos that they first sniff their target, hound him out of the herd, corner him; toy him a little until finally they pounce on the target who is left without any fences to defend himself.
It may be also a policy to showcase the penetration of Uncle Sam that they have peeped into the media, the arms business, oil, intelligence so as to caution the world that they are not declining power and all their secrets are no longer safe.
“We used the Kissinger doctrine for the Vietnam War,” Pacific Free Press writes further, “we adopted it in the Gulf war and we apply it in the war on terror. In practice the Kissinger doctrine can be summarized with one sentence: "the linking of the whole world for self interests”.”
All things are done due to fear. You pray because you fear the wrath of Almighty. You work due to fear of hunger and poverty. Nations have armies because fear of annexation and threat of disturbance. This thing raises one perturbing question associated with WikiLeaks ‘exposé’: Is there going to be new arms race due to WikiLeaks? Is USA trying to convince every whistleblower that he has safe lunching pad via WikiLeaks? And that way they may get secret information of other nations?
Those familiar with WikiLeaks before this ‘expose’ remember it showing Iraq footage in which US led occupational forces target journalists and civilian. The footage was not leaked but released by US troops just as Guantanamo torture pictures were released by them. Yet throughout the world these were given the name exposé ! There is small, clichéd question associated with Wikileakes but some times asking such questions answers complex things: Why were the cables leaked? Who is going to benefit from these leaks? What would be the implications of these leaks on the world? In the hysteria the journalists forgot or were made to look so and didn’t question. In a present world where media and advertisement are blurring lines it is not difficult to understand why WikiLeaks ‘expose’ became an overnight rage.
The Question of Credibility
How did one judge the cables on portal were credible? What is the criterion for judging WikiLeaks veracity? Who controls the net? Who manages the stuff coming on the Web? Journalism may be literature in hurry but rarely does it compromise on facts and credibility. For a journalist has nothing but credibility at stake. Yet very few journalists have put question mark on its credibility and the timing of the ‘leaks’. Just because there was hysteria created in the US WikiLeaks ‘expose’ becomes credible! But remember after occupying Iraq US invited the threat of anthrax being sent to their country by Iraq which later turned to be hoax like their previous invention of Iraq on possessing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to annex the oil rich Independent State.
Kissinger formula
In US there is Kissinger doctrine which says, "Our problems are the world´s problems". “The WikiLeaks documents reveal,” writes Pacific Free Press, “what the US government think of the world but the government cannot say it officially. Why they can't say it? Simply because America's opinion is not shared by the rest of the world. In practice it's a solo opinion.” Then it aptly puts it across when it says, “America holds the unique position of world's controller, how can its opinion be shared by somebody outside of its role?” (Wagging the WikiLeaks Tales, Dec 6).
All the ‘leaks’ released so far have not damaged US interest. In fact it has galvanized the solo power to get leverages from the other States. The ‘leaks’ are blackmailing to put it clearly.
US wants other States to fall in line. At the same time they reassure some of the vital allies of US that nothing is going to change by their new partnerships with other States. India, which in the past looked suspiciously at US, however, since the era of George Bush, started a new alliance with Uncle Sam. In 2009 just after Obama entered into the White House Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the first dignitary who was received by the US President. The euphoria was unprecedented in India over the invitation overlooking the fact, “India is viewed by the White House as mostly peripheral: important in itself no doubt,” wrote South Asian expert Ashyle Tellis on Nov, 23 2009, “but no longer a pressing geopolitical priority. The decision to exclude mentioning India in Obama’s recent Tokyo speech, where he articulated his vision for Asia, confirms this point,” (Ashley Tellis: Mr Singh goes to Washington, Yale Global, 23 Nov 2009).
In 2010 Obama came to India with a mission to get jobs secured for his citizens and a near about promise of seat in UN Security Council. Giving seat to India in UNSC means changing power balance in the region which US cannot afford as it would make Pakistan to rely more on China which in turn means a new arms race where US would not get lion’s share. Maintaining balance of power is a delicate thing which at times can backfire. In the 19th century United Kingdom—the undisputed super power then—concerned with the imbalance in power equation made sure that the diseased Ottoman Empire is not dismembered by the rising powers of Germany and France. As a result the sick Ottoman Empire survived in the 20th century and would have continued to rule but for Kamal Atturak. US is no different from UK and State policy is driven on hard national interest not on ideas.
There is no gainsaying that India is the largest market for any State. US businessmen for the past decade have strongly lobbied for India. Results of which are now obvious. But US partnership with any State is based on its dominance which India has objection against. It wants partnership on equal terms. The WikiLeaks was to bring India down to a position of subordinate. Already India’s relationship with China are strained. While Pakistan stayed away from the recent Nobel Peace Prize ceremony India couldn’t do the same. Due to its increasing proximity with US India again went against China. Already the military industrial complex in India is gaining momentum and US is getting the best business deals. And India is a home to world’s best business community and this burgeoning capital class hopes that State’s business policy may change the policies of other nations. But US wants India to behave like any other allied State. So the WikiLeaks `exposé' would mean more arms buying by India from US as Indians believe business interests may finally coerce US to accept it as an equal partner. Same is the case with Saudi Arabia. Just look at some of the ‘leaks’ involving Saudi Arabia: tirade against Iran and the pompous drinking and sleazy parties of ruling elites. All this comes under US doctrine of ‘necessary pain’ which is used to destabilise any State. And those familiar with US ‘New Middle East policy’ would easily realise the designs behind it. The ‘New Middle East policy’ was to redraw maps in Muslim countries including Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. The entry of Al Qaeda militia in Iraq thwarted their plan. Now they are looking other ways to make their sinister plan work.
However, the real exposé would have been the information that Indian military preparing missiles that could attack main Iranian cities. There is no mention of it although Stephen P. Cohen and Sunil Dasgupta in their latest book ‘Arming without Arms: India’s Military Modernisation’ (P 108) give description of that.
No leaks about Israel
Is there anything related to Israel? Almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East today are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas but you won’t find any ‘leaked’ cables about it! What about the political assassinations carried out by Israel and US? What about the support and funding received by the Sudan terrorists by CIA not figuring in it. It is these facts which render all leaks, that amount some 261 million words equivalent to 3,000 books, suspicious.
Writing in the Counter Punch Diary, Alexander Cockburn says: “The irony is that the thousands of diplomatic communications released by WikiLeaks contain no earth-shaking disclosures that undermine the security of the American empire. The reports in the official press invite,” he insists, “us to be stunned at the news that the King of Saudi Arabia wishes Iran was wiped off the map, that the US uses diplomats as spies, that Afghanistan is corrupt, also that corruption is not unknown in Russia!” (Julian Assange: Wanted by the Empire, Dead or Alive. Counter Punch Diary, Dec 3 -5, 2010).
‘Constructive Chaos’
By disclosing personal profiles and details of world leaders redacted by US diplomats Uncle Sam is creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence that would foster anarchy around the globe because they believe in ‘constructive chaos’ that helps them to get leverage. The constructive chaos helps the world’s policeman to decode many secrets. It is among chaos that they first sniff their target, hound him out of the herd, corner him; toy him a little until finally they pounce on the target who is left without any fences to defend himself.
It may be also a policy to showcase the penetration of Uncle Sam that they have peeped into the media, the arms business, oil, intelligence so as to caution the world that they are not declining power and all their secrets are no longer safe.
“We used the Kissinger doctrine for the Vietnam War,” Pacific Free Press writes further, “we adopted it in the Gulf war and we apply it in the war on terror. In practice the Kissinger doctrine can be summarized with one sentence: "the linking of the whole world for self interests”.”
All things are done due to fear. You pray because you fear the wrath of Almighty. You work due to fear of hunger and poverty. Nations have armies because fear of annexation and threat of disturbance. This thing raises one perturbing question associated with WikiLeaks ‘exposé’: Is there going to be new arms race due to WikiLeaks? Is USA trying to convince every whistleblower that he has safe lunching pad via WikiLeaks? And that way they may get secret information of other nations?
|
|
|
|
Get Free Email Updates Daily! |
Follow us! 
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment