We've been told--even by people like Kieth Olbermann, who should know better--that theWikiLeaks document dump of State Department cables contains very little serious information. But, of course, that perception is generated by the same press corps that was totally clueless about its own role in fraudulently leading our nation to war against an ideological enemy of those who attacked us on 9/11. Such a press corps has already proven itself professrionally incapable of recognizing what is significant, and what is not--much less what is simply an outright lie. To understand the value and significance of the WikiLeaks document dump, you must turn to those who have a reasonable recor of understanding US foreign policy and international relations in the first place. This is why Tuesday's program of Democracy Now! was so important. First off, Amy Goodman interviewed Investigations Executive Editor David Leigh at the Guardian, who told her that much more was to come:
DAVID LEIGH: These revelations aren't over yet. In fact, they've barely started. We at the Guardian and the other international news organizations will be making revelations, disclosures from now, day-by-day, for probably the next week or more. So, we haven't seen anything yet, really.... In the coming days, we're going to see some quite startling disclosures about Russia, the nature of the Russian state and about bribery and corruption in other countries, particularly in Central Asia. We're going to see a wrath of disclosures about pretty terrible things going on around the world.
AMY GOODMAN: What are your thoughts today? For example, we just played this clip of New York republican congress member Peter King who says WikiLeaks should be declared a foreign terrorist organization.
NOAM CHOMSKY: I think that is outlandish. We should understand--and the Pentagon Papers is another case in point--that one of the major reasons for government secrecy is to protect the government from its own population.... If you look at the papers themselves, there are things Americans should have known that others did not want them to know. And as far as I can tell, from what I've seen here, pretty much the same is true.
Goodman went on to play a clip of Hilary Clinton, trying to spin the cables to US propaganda advantage:
HILARY CLINTON: I think that it should not be a surprise to anyone that Iran is a source of great concern, not only in the United States. What comes through in every meeting that I have--anywhere in the world--is a concern about Iranian actions and intentions. So, if anything, any of the comments that are being reported on allegedly from the cables confirm the fact that Iran poses a very serious threat in the eyes of many of her neighbors and a serious concern far beyond her region....
But when she turns to Chomsky, he shrewdly points out what this really means, that the US holds Arab opinion in contempt, and is only concerned with what Arab dictators think. We're no more interested in democracy in the Middle East than we are with it in Florida 2000 or the US Senate today:
AMY GOODMAN: That was Secretary to Hillary Clinton yesterday at a news conference. I wanted to get your comment on Clinton, Netanyahu's comment, and the fact that Abdullah of Saudi Arabia-- the King who is now getting back surgery in the New York-- called for the U.S. to attack Iran. Noam Chomsky?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That essentially reinforces what I said before, that the main significance of the cables that are being released so far is what they tell us about Western leadership. So Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu surely know of the careful polls of Arab public opinion. The Brookings Institute just a few months ago released extensive polls of what Arabs think about Iran. The results are rather striking. They show the Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel--that's 80. The second major threat is the United States--that's 77. Iran is listed as a threat by 10%.
With regard to nuclear weapons, rather remarkably, a majority--in fact, 57--say that the region would have a positive effect in the region if Iran had nuclear weapons. Now, these are not small numbers. 80, 77, say the U.S. and Israel are the major threat. 10 say Iran is the major threat. This may not be reported in the newspapers here- it is in England- but it's certainly familiar to the Israeli and U.S. governments, and to the ambassadors. But there is not a word about it anywhere. What that reveals is the profound hatred for democracy on the part of our political leadership and the Israeli political leadership. These things aren't even to be mentioned. This seeps its way all through the diplomatic service. The cables to not have any indication of that.
When they talk about Arabs, they mean the Arab dictators, not the population, which is overwhelmingly opposed to the conclusions that the analysts here--Clinton and the media--have drawn. There's also a minor problem; that's the major problem. The minor problem is that we don't know from the cables what the Arab leaders think and say. We know what was selected from the range of what they say. So there is a filtering process. We don't know how much it distorts the information. But there is no question that what is a radical distortion is--or, not even a distortion, a reflection--of the concern that the dictators are what matter. The population does not matter, even if it's overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. policy.
There is, in fact, a great deal of insight to be gained by a careful reading of the cables and a comparison to other sources of information, as Chomsky goes on to demonstrate with respect to invasion/attack on Gaza that immediately preceeding Obama's swearing in:
One of the most interesting cables was a cable from the U.S. ambassador in Israel to Hillary Clinton, which described the attack on Gaza--which we should call the U.S./Israeli attack on Gaza--December 2008. It states correctly there had been a truce. It does not add that during the truce-- which was really not observed by Israel--but during the truce, Hamas scrupulously observed it according to the Israeli government, not a single rocket was fired. That's an omission. But then comes a straight line: it says that in December 2008, Hamas renewed rocket firing and therefore Israel had to attack in self-defense. Now, the ambassador surely is aware that there must be somebody in the American Embassy who reads the Israeli press--the mainstream Israeli press--in which case the embassy is surely aware that it is exactly the opposite: Hamas was calling for a renewal of the cease-fire. Israel considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to bomb rather than have security. Also omitted is that while Israel never observed the cease-fire--it maintained the siege in violation of the truce agreement--on November 4, the U.S. election 2008, the Israeli army invaded Gaza, killed half a dozen Hamas militants, which did lead to an exchange of fire in which all the casualties, as usual, were Palestinian. Then in December, Hamas--when the truce officially ended--Hamas called for renewing it. Israel refused, and the U.S. and Israel chose to launch the war. What the embassy reported is a gross falsification and a very significant one since--since it has to do the justification for the murderous attack--which means either the embassy hasn't a clue to what is going on or else they're lying outright.
So there is clearly a good deal to be learned from these cables, and there's no doubt that future historians will study and cite them to significantly enhance our understanding of events.
See, too, for example, "Cables Hold Clues to US-Iran Mysteries" by Robert Parry on how Obama derailed the potential easing of relationships with Iran, even as he was promising the opposite. Or Robert Naiman, WikiLeaks Honduras: State Dept. Busted on Support of Coup on Obama's support for overthrowing democracy in Central America. These cables clearly flesh out and document in detail what critical observers have been saying for quite some time. Now, however, it is no longer a matter that can credibly be debated.
But all this is only matters to apparent to those who actually have at least a minimal understanding of what's going on in the world--and/or an interest in the truth, as opposed to what serves American imperial power.
And that, of course, excludes all Versailles, almost by definition.
The same, of course, is true about virtually everything else, from unemployment to global warming.
The only thing they really understand is gossip, sex scandals.... And cake.
STATE BLOGS
