Blogger Template by Blogcrowds.



Newswise — Stephen B. Wicker, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Cornell University, conducts research in wireless information networks and how regulation can affect privacy and speech rights. Wicker comments on the recent WikiLeaks releases, how those releases connect to SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), and the need to balance Internet freedom.
Wicker says:
"WikiLeaks began to release e-mail correspondence last week that had been taken from Stratfor, a global analysis firm that provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations. The e-mails include details of various attacks on WikiLeaks, which have included freezing assets, delisting the WikiLeaks site from the Internet domain name service and terminating access to credit card donation services.
"The United States Congress proposed to use virtually identical techniques against purveyors of pirated goods in the SOPA and PIPA anti-piracy bills, including blocking access to websites in other countries through IP blocking and manipulation of the Domain Name System.
"In both cases the government and corporate media have sought to interfere with the workings of the Internet. The rationales – maintaining the secrecy of sensitive information and protection of copyrighted materials – have merit, but both must be balanced against the freedom of expression provided by the Internet.
Internet access is readily connected to fundamental human goods that most would associate with human rights: the quest for truth, the ability to test one’s arguments in an open forum, and the self-realization that comes from participating in a great, ongoing conversation. Given the uniqueness of the Internet and the disadvantage entailed from not having access – there is even a name for it: the 'digital divide' – one can argue that access to the Internet is itself a human right.
"When the functionality of the Internet is inhibited to prevent the public from obtaining information that would simply embarrass the government – remember the Pentagon Papers – or a particular corporation, this is clearly a bad sign for a democratic nation. Some degree of openness is a good thing. The Internet is our universal library, and the public needs open and unfettered access in order to determine who is telling the truth.
"On the other hand, some revelations can endanger public servants, while convincing others not to take risks that may be for the good of the country. The question of how to balance copyright and the need for secrecy against free expression is a conversation that the public needs and wants to have in an open forum. The recent response to SOPA and PIPA were clarion calls to the corporate media and the government. They need to listen."

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
Hide header UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BUCHAREST 001467 SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR/NCE/BILL SILKWORTH, EB/JACK BOBO USDA PASS FAS/AUDREY TALLEY USDC PASS ITA/HILL SOFIA FOR AGRICULTURAL ATTACHE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAGR [Agriculture and Forestry], ECON [Economic Conditions], TBIO [Biological and Medical Science], RO [Romania], trade relations SUBJECT: CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION (CAC) SESSION: ROMANIAN RESPONSES TO USG CONCERNS REGARDING NEXT SESSION REF: State 113408 ¶1. FAS Bucharest passed Reftel demarche to the following government officials in the Romanian Veterinary and Food Safety National Authority (VFSNA): Dr. Liviu Rusu, General Director of the General Food Safety Directorate; Monica Neagu, Director, Division for Standards, Marks and Food Quality, National Codex Contact Point; Dr. Paul Piscoi, Director, Hygiene and Public Health Directorate. ¶2. GOR officials submitted comments to a number of USG concerns as follows: -- Rules-based decision making/geographic indicators (e.g., parmesan cheese): VFSNA considers that all issues related to commercial brands/geographic indicators and other intellectual property should be debated within WHO (World Health Organization) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) meetings. New work to elaborate a codex standard for parmesan cheese is justified to the extent to which it would eliminate trade barriers and/or for consumer safety considerations. In accordance with the requirements laid down by CAC Procedural Manual fourteenth edition, the proposal to develop a Codex standard should be accompanied by a Project comprising the justification, the purpose and the objectives. In VFSNA's opinion, it is advisable that, considering the latest technological and scientific developments, the Codex standard for "Extra Hard Granting Cheese" adopted in 1978 (Stand C-35-1978) to be considered for updating. -- New work on animal feeding: Romania is currently adopting guides of practice for animal feeding. In order to be able to accurately assess the recently adopted Codex Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding, VFSNA supports the view of the United States that undertaking new work at this time is not appropriate and member countries should be allowed more time to investigate their current situation relative to the Code of Practice. -- Antimicrobial resistance: Romania believes that the appropriateness of the United States proposal on the formation of a working group comprised of delegates from Codex Committee on Food Hygiene and Codex Committee on Residues from Veterinary Drugs should be discussed with the World Animal Health Organization (OIE). -- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)/WHO Project and Trust Fund for Enhanced Participation in Codex: VFSNA also considers that, rather than simply using economic criteria, other considerations should be taken into account to support those countries that would most benefit from participation in Codex. The United States' initiative to organize workshops prior to the working sessions is beneficial in explaining what is expected of delegates, what are the Codex mechanisms, as well as in structuring common opinions over different items on the agenda. -- Cadmium: Romania also supports adoption of the maximum levels for cadmium in wheat grain; potato; stem and root vegetables; leafy vegetables; and other vegetables, as per the proposed Codex standard, as these are also in accordance with the domestic legislation. Romania adopted as maximum levels for cadmium of 0.2 mg/kg in polished rice, respectively 1 mg/kg for marine bivalve mollusks and in cephalopods (without viscera), in the process of adopting national standards to the EU requirements. Romania's official position is that maximum levels for cadmium in polished rice should be set up should take into consideration the specific production and processing conditions of each country, as well as the extent to which each country plays a part in international trade. Discussions on a possible acceptance of maximum levels for cadmium set up higher that the current provisions should be based on a complex risk assessment conducted by independent bodies and in consultation with WHO and UNICEF regarding special rice-based food for infants, as well as with world consumer protection NGOs. -- Aflatoxin in tree nuts: Romania supports the United States' stance on brazil nuts. For setting the maximum aflatoxins level in unprocessed almonds, hazelnuts and pistachios, the admissible limit for human consumption should be taken into consideration, based on science-based independent research work. -- Possible U.S. candidate for Vice Chair of Codex: Romania's representative to CAC meeting welcomes the opportunity to consult with the U.S. delegation prior to the session. Items raised by the United States in Reftel talking points are of interest to Romania. ¶3. Ms. Monica Neagu, National Codex Contact Point, will represent Romania at the upcoming session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Delare

NAIROBI, Kenya — U.S. cables made public by WikiLeaks show that the United States warned Kenya two years ago not to launch an offensive in southern Somalia against al Qaida-allied al Shabab rebels, but a U.S. official also offered to check on the "feasibility" of a U.S. review of the plans.
Kenya went ahead with an invasion a month ago, saying it was a response to a recent series of kidnappings near the border between the two countries. But the existence of the cables undercuts Kenya's claim that the move had not been long planned.
The cables paint a contradictory picture of whether the United States encouraged Kenya's invasion of its neighbor.
Taken as a whole, they seem to lend credence to Washington's claims that it had neither encouraged nor supported the invasion. But one particularly lively cable depicts a senior U.S. official asking Kenya's foreign minister if Kenyan troops shouldn't consider trying to take Kismayo, the Shabab stronghold seaport, on their own or with the help of Somali militias, and promising the review of the plans by an American team. The tactics described in that cable match the plan Kenya appears to be trying to execute.
While reliable independent information from the ground is scarce, the Kenyan offensive appears to have stalled one month in. The military has cited heavy rains and mud for slowing its movements, but Rashid Abdi, a Nairobi-based Somali analyst at the International Crisis Group, says that the military is hesitating to proceed into Shabab territory because the Islamist group is refusing to engage the Kenyan troops openly.
"The Kenyans were hoping to fight on their terms. Al Shabab has now turned the equation," said Abdi.
Kenya could be trying to buy time in hopes of more outside assistance. Kenya has called for a blockade of Kismayo from the sea, and on Wednesday it hosted Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his Somali counterpart, Sharif Ahmed, to shore up regional backing of its military campaign.
A bogged-down campaign is one of the reasons U.S. officials cited, according to the cables, for opposing a Kenyan operation.
According to a cable dated Feb. 2, 2010, Johnnie Carson, the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, provided Kenyan Foreign Minister Moses Wetangula with a variety of reasons that the U.S. believed a proposed Kenyan incursion could backfire during a Jan. 30, 2010, meeting in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia.
Kenyan officials had been aggressively pitching the idea over several months, the cables show, asking U.S. officials to back their plan to create a semi-autonomous buffer zone on Kenya's border with Somalia. The Kenyans vowed that not "a single Kenyan boot" would enter Somalia and that the entire operation would be conducted by Kenyan-trained Somali troops.
Carson, however, warned that the operation would be more complicated and expensive than expected. He also said such an invasion might spark conflict between Somalia's combustible clan and sub-clan networks and weaken the authority of the central government in Mogadishu.
Carson also questioned Kenya's resolve in the case of defeat or setback and wondered if its leaders were prepared to deal with discontent back home if the war turned sour.
The cable said Carson "concluded by suggesting that there shold (sic) be more conventional and convenient ways to accomplish the same end. Could, for example, the trained Somalis help Kenya to re-take Kismayo?"
According to the cable, the National Security Council's senior director for African affairs, Michelle Gavin, then expressed the United States' willingness to brainstorm other strategies with Kenya.
The Kenyan delegation, which included Kenya's minister of defense, the head of its intelligence service and the chief of its armed forces, continued to press the Americans passionately for support, with Wetangula summing up their arguments by pleading, "I may not have been as convincing as I should have been," but "the threat is real," according to the cable.
Carson ended the meeting by promising to "look into the feasibility" of sending a U.S. team to Kenya to review the plan's technical details, but he told the Kenyans that he "still maintained deep reservations" about it, the cable said.
The cable noted this was the third time Wetangula had made a personal pitch to Carson to support the plans, which would involve 2,000 Kenyan-trained Somali troops in an offensive. The end goal was to create a new semi-autonomous administration in Jubaland, the southern region of Somalia. Kenyan officials argued that Kenya's poorly secured border with Somalia was a major national security threat.
Since Kenya's invasion last month, U.S. officials have denied that the U.S. was involved in planning Kenya's offensive or was providing assistance — a position that appears to be backed by the deep skepticism the cables show U.S. officials had for the plan.
"I don't think it points to an American plot," said Roger Middleton, an analyst in London for Chatham House, Britain's premier foreign policy think tank. "For me the cables make the case a bit stronger that Kenya went on this on its own."
But Middleton also said that the United States, Britain and France now have a "begrudging acceptance" of the invasion and are likely to be providing intelligence and other covert forms of support now that the operation is underway.
"In the short term, people would be happy if Kenya succeeds and takes Kismayo. But I haven't seen a plan of what comes next. And that's the real worry," Middleton said.
The diplomatic cables show that, at the beginning of last year, Washington shared those concerns.
Kenya tried repeatedly to persuade Washington to ease its opposition to its Jubaland project. In addition to Wetangula's pitches to Carson, senior Kenyan officials pitched a number of U.S. representatives around the same time: Karl Wycoff, the deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs, on Dec. 8, 2009; Alexander Vershbow, the assistant secretary of defense, on Jan. 26, 2010; and Daniel Benjamin, the ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism, on Jan. 29. All U.S. officials told Kenya that the U.S. had strong reservations about the plan, according to the cables.
The British government also was pessimistic of the plan, according to a Jan. 15, 2010, cable from the U.S. Embassy in London.
Opposition also came from Uganda, according to another cable, which said that on Jan. 31, 2010, in Addis Ababa, Ugandan President Museveni questioned Kenya's ability to wage unconventional war in Somalia, criticizing Kenya's military as a career army and asking rhetorically, "Is Kenya used to fighting like this?" Museveni also questioned the ideological commitment of Kenya's proxy Somali militias.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi offered only qualified support and said he shared U.S. concerns. "We are not enthusiastic, but we are hoping for success," he told U.S. officials on that same day, according to a separate cable.
The foreign minister of Djibouti, a small country to the north of Somalia that hosts a major U.S. military base, told the U.S. he feared Kenya's invasion could produce the same ill consequences as the U.S.-backed Ethiopian invasion in 2006, which prompted Shabab to launch its insurgency in southern Somalia.
The concerted rebuff had one notable exception, however: China. A February 2010 diplomatic cable from the U.S.'s Nairobi embassy says that in January, as Kenya was feverishly pitching its Western and regional allies for support, the Chinese government gave Kenya weapons, ammunition and uniforms for use by the Somali force that Kenya was training for the task.
The Kenyan military denied support from the Chinese in its current operations. "If there is under-the-table support, I am not aware," said Maj. Emmanuel Chirchir, the Kenyan military spokesman.
Chirchir also denied that China gave military support to Kenya's trained Somali militias two years ago. He would not directly respond to how Kenya's current military offensive is related to the Jubaland project as laid out in the Wikileaks cables.
"There is no such thing as the Jubaland initiative," Chirchir said. "We attacked because our tourism industry was attacked."

The Spyfiles

Mass interception of entire populations is not only a reality, it is a secret new industry spanning 25 countries
It sounds like something out of Hollywood, but as of today, mass interception systems, built by Western intelligence contractors, including for ’political opponents’ are a reality. Today WikiLeaks began releasing a database of hundreds of documents from as many as 160 intelligence contractors in the mass surveillance industry. Working with Bugged Planet and Privacy International, as well as media organizations form six countries – ARD in Germany, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in the UK, The Hindu in India, L’Espresso in Italy, OWNI in France and the Washington Post in the U.S. Wikileaks is shining a light on this secret industry that has boomed since September 11, 2001 and is worth billions of dollars per year. WikiLeaks has released 287 documents today, but the Spy Files project is ongoing and further information will be released this week and into next year.
International surveillance companies are based in the more technologically sophisticated countries, and they sell their technology on to every country of the world. This industry is, in practice, unregulated. Intelligence agencies, military forces and police authorities are able to silently, and on mass, and secretly intercept calls and take over computers without the help or knowledge of the telecommunication providers. Users’ physical location can be tracked if they are carrying a mobile phone, even if it is only on stand by.
But the WikiLeaks Spy Files are more than just about ’good Western countries’ exporting to ’bad developing world countries’. Western companies are also selling a vast range of mass surveillance equipment to Western intelligence agencies. In traditional spy stories, intelligence agencies like MI5 bug the phone of one or two people of interest. In the last ten years systems for indiscriminate, mass surveillance have become the norm. Intelligence companies such as VASTech secretly sell equipment to permanently record the phone calls of entire nations. Others record the location of every mobile phone in a city, down to 50 meters. Systems to infect every Facebook user, or smart-phone owner of an entire population group are on the intelligence market.

Selling Surveillance to Dictators

When citizens overthrew the dictatorships in Egypt and Libya this year, they uncovered listening rooms where devices from Gamma corporation of the UK, Amesys of France, VASTech of South Africa and ZTE Corp of China monitored their every move online and on the phone.
Surveillance companies like SS8 in the U.S., Hacking Team in Italy and Vupen in France manufacture viruses (Trojans) that hijack individual computers and phones (including iPhones, Blackberries and Androids), take over the device, record its every use, movement, and even the sights and sounds of the room it is in. Other companies like Phoenexia in the Czech Republic collaborate with the military to create speech analysis tools. They identify individuals by gender, age and stress levels and track them based on ‘voiceprints’. Blue Coat in the U.S. and Ipoque in Germany sell tools to governments in countries like China and Iran to prevent dissidents from organizing online.
Trovicor, previously a subsidiary of Nokia Siemens Networks, supplied the Bahraini government with interception technologies that tracked human rights activist Abdul Ghani Al Khanjar. He was shown details of personal mobile phone conversations from before he was interrogated and beaten in the winter of 2010-2011.

How Mass Surveillance Contractors Share Your Data with the State

In January 2011, the National Security Agency broke ground on a $1.5 billion facility in the Utah desert that is designed to store terabytes of domestic and foreign intelligence data forever and process it for years to come.
Telecommunication companies are forthcoming when it comes to disclosing client information to the authorities - no matter the country. Headlines during August’s unrest in the UK exposed how Research in Motion (RIM), makers of the Blackberry, offered to help the government identify their clients. RIM has been in similar negotiations to share BlackBerry Messenger data with the governments of India, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Weaponizing Data Kills Innocent People

There are commercial firms that now sell special software that analyze this data and turn it into powerful tools that can be used by military and intelligence agencies.
For example, in military bases across the U.S., Air Force pilots use a video link and joystick to fly Predator drones to conduct surveillance over the Middle East and Central Asia. This data is available to Central Intelligence Agency officials who use it to fire Hellfire missiles on targets.
The CIA officials have bought software that allows them to match phone signals and voice prints instantly and pinpoint the specific identity and location of individuals. Intelligence Integration Systems, Inc., based in Massachusetts - sells a “location-based analytics” software called Geospatial Toolkit for this purpose. Another Massachusetts company named Netezza, which bought a copy of the software, allegedly reverse engineered the code and sold a hacked version to the Central Intelligence Agency for use in remotely piloted drone aircraft.
IISI, which says that the software could be wrong by a distance of up to 40 feet, sued Netezza to prevent the use of this software. Company founder Rich Zimmerman stated in court that his “reaction was one of stun, amazement that they (CIA) want to kill people with my software that doesn’t work."

Orwell’s World

Across the world, mass surveillance contractors are helping intelligence agencies spy on individuals and ‘communities of interest’ on an industrial scale.
The Wikileaks Spy Files reveal the details of which companies are making billions selling sophisticated tracking tools to government buyers, flouting export rules, and turning a blind eye to dictatorial regimes that abuse human rights.

How to use the Spy Files

To search inside those files, click one of the link on the left pane of this page, to get the list of documents by type, company date or tag.

Berlin claims that €50m contribution disappeared into US treasury coffers with 15% 'administrative fee' taken by army 
Afghan national army recruits on a training exercise
WikiLeaks cables show Germany has questioned the US about money contributed by allies to a trust fund to finance the Afghan national army's kit and infrastructure. Photograph: Majid Saeedi/Getty Images
The US military has been charging its allies a 15% handling fee on hundreds of millions of dollars being raised internationally to build up the Afghan army. Germany has threatened to cancel contributions.
According to a protest to the US from Germany's ambassador to Nato this year, Berlin raised questions about the fate of €50m (£42m) it dispensed last year as the biggest contribution to a "trust fund" for the Afghan national army.
In protests in Berlin, Brussels, and Washington last February the German government demanded to know what was happening to the money, why earmarked projects were not going ahead and why the US military was taking 15%.
A cable to Washington from the US mission to Nato sought instructions on how to respond to the protests from Ulrich Brandenburg, the German ambassador to the military alliance.
"He said that money for earmarked projects had not been disbursed, resulting in delayed projects. He also said that the US army corps of engineers was charging a 15% administrative fee. He said that German parliamentarians were beginning to ask questions about how this money has been handled, adding that this could make it difficult for Berlin to provide additional contributions in the future."
Originally set up in 2007 to finance Afghan army kit and infrastructure, the trust fund had risen to more than €123m by the start of this year, according to Nato figures, with another €151m pledged involving 20 countries.
The German contribution was by far the biggest, more than double the second-placed €22m given by the Dutch, although Australia had pledged €150m.
Ivo Daalder, the US ambassador to Nato, told Washington that the German complaint raised "serious political concerns".
"The appearance that the US is charging allies an excessive fee for the use of monies they have donated to the ANA [Afghan national army] trust fund may be difficult to explain away during a parliamentary debate. Brandenburg is probably correct in arguing that issues such as this could make it more difficult to encourage nations to donate to the trust fund."
The US ambassador added that the German protest may be "inaccurate" since the 15% was probably a "contingency" rather than an "administrative" fee.
The German complaint said its €50m was transferred to an account of Shape, Nato's planning headquarters in Belgium, in October last year, with €7m earmarked for three military schools and barracks in Kabul, Mazar-I-Sharif, and Feyzabad.
"As of today no project financing has occurred," the Germans said on 3 February. In violation of the agreement setting up the contribution the money had then gone to the US treasury "including assignment of the US army corps of engineers and an administrative fee of 15%" .
Brandenburg said questions were being asked by German MPs and the Merkel government in Berlin was under pressure to explain what had happened with the money.
"Charging a 15% fee for managing and executing ANA TF, especially when applied to the funding of projects pursued by Germany, will inevitably attract heavy criticism by German audit bodies and parliamentary commissions."
The German protest voiced "concern about the fact that any further delay in allocating funds to the prioritised German projects and executing the remainder of funds donated by Germany must substantially impair prospects for any further German contributions to the ANA TF."

Assange’s files confirm the evaporation of EU foreign policy

Looking for something about the European Union in Wikileaks’ files could be a mistake. How come ? Doesn’t Brussels represent EU interests up against the power of America ? Not exactly. It’s rather that the US are making arrangements with individual countries in order to avoid having plans that are too extensive.

Wikileaks has based its reputation on playing the game on many levels. What Assange placed online for the theme US - EU gives a truly typical portrait of the relationship that the greatest army in the world has with its allies, in terms of policy and spending. It is obvious that in the new globalised world, the EU is playing in the second division when it comes to foreign policy. Beyond environmental, training and transition projects, the EU does not appear in Wikileaks’ reports as a significant diplomatic power. Its purposes represent an institutional ’superstructure’, not comparable to the ’political’ state.
First of all, EU interests are much closer to American interests than we usually think. There is noEuropean country that doesn’t have to deal individually with the US, despite public opinion. For example : in 2007, during the war on terror, the U.S. embassy in Spain reported : ’We must not give Zapatero the idea of having to choose between the US and the EU.« Washington knows Zapatero’s socialist views mean that they cannot target a common political interest. But the diplomat said : »We have many well-established interests in Spain, as do NATO. We need to act on France and Germany. We strongly support the European Union and its enlargement. " This enlargement seems to be at odds with the economic crisis of the PIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain ), which are the Member States with more default risk in the eurozone.
In this respect, the Italian Prime Minister declares himself hopeful, indeed, in a conversation with Ambassador David Thorne in January 2010, he recalled how his close friendship with Prime Minister Papandreou would solve any risk of contagion for Italy. This is only a statement, certainly, but still a private visit by the US ambassador to the premier in office. Many private opinions have emerged about this, also in light of what is happening in politics on a national level. Today Ambassador Thorne’s website states that he recently took part in a campaign for a Gay Help Line. We can perhaps assume that recent statements by Prime Minister Berlusconi have not gone unnoticed.
But what the US (and NATO) are really interested in is the war on terror. Without this war there would be no Wikileaks. According to Washington, the EU Member States - Germany especially - should collaborate more actively in training activities taking place in Afghanistan. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini is also talking about Afghanistan, proposing to the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that opium plantations should be transformed into olive groves, and that schools should be created where the Afghan ruling class can be educated.
To find something more specifically related to the European Union, we must look to our MIddle Eastern borders, where Turkey, in a file dated 20/01/10, is described as ’very close to Europe’, especially regarding imports from the European Community. But, at the same time, Turkey is described as being attracted to the idea of ’Neo ottomanism’, which would lead to it being classified more and more frequently as Middle Eastern and therefore Muslim, and thus jeopardizing its already uncertain participation in the project of the European Community.
Friction is also present in US relations with France, also regarding foreign policy. In February this year, Paris accused the US of failing to adequately consider its European allies in the Afghan strategy. A diplomatic way to justify the sale of four Mistral warships to Moscow, which was completed just 2
JPEG - 12.6 ko
The logo of Wikileaks
Wikileaks is an international non-profit organisation that receives secret documents anonymously and then loads them on its website.
months later, for 600 million euro. This was Russia’s first acquisition of heavy weaponry made in the EU. Less than a year earlier, on 3rd November 2009, Sarkozy and Kouchner sent a warm welcome to a US official, reiterating that the EU “is the strongest and closest ally of the United States, and France and Germany are the natural leaders”.
Ambassador Rifkin noted that this was a very different attitude to the one long presented by former President De Gaulle. Business is business, as we all know, but US protests at France taking the opportunity to arm Russia have not gone unnoticed. Even better, we can find them in one of the several files Wikileaks has made available to the public. An event that no one could have imagined, that may not change the forces at work, but that marks the “9/11 of world diplomacy “, as Franco Frattini put it.
Those hoping to have formal talks with the top institutions in Europe will remain disappointed, confirming, amongst other things, that the real diplomacy is still played out among the sovereign states, thus bypassing the European diplomatic institutions. It is clear to Washington that it is easier to play on separate tables rather than to develop practical solutions in an enlarged Europe. This is the reason why Washington prefers to test the waters by asking for the support of Germany, France or even Slovenia, regarding giving asylum to Chinese Uighur refugees and former Guantanamo detainees, before dealing with Brussels.
The EU is considered as a cover or a symbol for charitable or cultural initiatives, such as a programme put forward by France in 2007 to encourage Iranian civil society. These efforts take a back seat, however, compared to the interests cultivated by the US regarding Israel and Turkey, two key allies in conflict with one another. Here the European Union can play an important role, as long as it does not continue to make gaffes of the sort that Wikileaks is currently helping to spread. Such as, for example, the document dated 07/31/2009, telling how the EU sent “low-rank” diplomats to the inauguration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s new mandate (controversial to say the very least).
According to the source in the report, “if Iran had found out the hierarchal status of the Europeandiplomats, it may have withdrawn the invitation, as had already happened in the past”. Although many of the statements published by Wikileaks are claimed to be “irrelevant”, it seems necessary to reiterate that the sources are so numerous, relevant and detailed that Wikileaks cannot be considered as a simple collection of “what has already been said”.
There is a huge amount of information regarding global hot spots, but the European Union is not among these, apart from the Balkans, which are often mentioned and where the contribution of theEuropean Union is crucial. Angela Merkel is careful indeed to ensure that Serbia will not enter the EU without giving up Kosovo permanently. A significant convergence of policies on both sides of the Atlantic has been clearly defined, with some “laissez faire” granted by the US to the EuropeanUnion. For example, the US does not have much to say about the popular trend amongst Europeancountries to be far less active in the African diplomatic field, and to focus instead on commercial initiatives.
This means missions dedicated to business (who knows, maybe even the sale of weapons ?) and more “pragmatic” and less substantial diplomacy. Wikileaks will certainly help here, by pillorying the real opinions of US diplomats, and especially the pro-Western policy with its tactics which are to the detriment of others. And, according to Sarkozy, the “others” in the European Union are the 25 EU countries apart from France and Germany.
JPEG - 39.4 ko
Julian Assange
Julian Assange is a board member and the main spokesman for WikiLeaks
Source : flickr, Abode of Chaos
It has been already said, but deciding who plays the part of the good guy and who plays the PIG has an impact. In the US files, Italy appears on the inside, as many Italians would like to see (or not). During the visit the US ambassador paid him in the aftermath of the attack at Milan Cathedral, Berlusconi said he was depressed, but he expressed his appreciation for Pierluigi Bersani, chairman of Italy’s Democratic Party. He did however stress that Massimo D’Alema remains the opposition party’s most authoritative speaker, mainly due to the “brave decisions” taken in the Balkans. A more than dignified picture, which paints Italy in the role of loyal ally to the United States first and founding member of the European Union second. However, EU interests have a long reach, so much so as to be summoned by Mauricio Funes, the President of San Salvador, who - in an article in El Pais - requested Europeansupport as well as American to ward off the crisis that broke out in Honduras as a result of the coup d’état in 2009.
Another example is in Russia, where the EU seeks to remind the US that Moscow’s support for sanctions against Iran needs the power of Brussels to mediate between the two former Cold War rivals. However, the Hot War is elsewhere, even if Wikileaks does not fail to reveal the ambiguity of the EuropeanUnion regarding Georgia and Chechnya, where Putin is certainly not an easy ally. The US is said to be moving away from the European Union, preferring the leaders of tomorrow, such as China, India and Brazil, but also Turkey, Iran and Israel, the Mediterranean half moon which slipped out ofEuropean hands a long time ago in the rush of decolonisation. It was a move wanted by the US in the face of European power, as they hoped to directly manage dialogue with rational and sovereign democracies. A very optimistic plan, considering that now “re-colonisation” is occurring in the form ofEuropean goods and rights, but without the anthropological appeal that was there first time round. Nobody trusts the US, nor Europe, which is today facing a crisis of identity in terms of foreign policy like never before.
Where is the strong Europe that was ready to accept Turkey, Russia and even Israel ? Wikileaksdoes not tell us, and it is certain that newspapers now finally have more realistic sources to draw from, rather than reporting vague quotes from many leaders from Europe and beyond. Yet, despite the low budget and the enormous deficits - that will reach 12% for England in 2010, according to the governor of the Bank of England, reported by Wikileaks on 17 February - in its current state theEuropean economy does not have any effect on the interests that seem to be important for Member States : the institutional support of companies such as italian energy company Eni, real multinational powers, which Europe cannot give up if it wants to have voice in a global world. Yet the then EU Commissioner for External Relations Chris Patten, stated even in 2004 that : « The EU will never be a real power, the dubious value of its leaders, the Cyprus problem and the difference between an alliance and a union count for too much. Not to mention the ’killer eyes’ of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. »
Patten ended his mandate in 2004, but only after getting some things off his chest, declaring his admiration for the US to US envoys in Brussels : « In Europe there is always someone at the table who is too cautious, we do not take decisions like the United States. » Not to mention the quality of the leaders of some countries. « If you have to dine with them, you’d better bring a long spoon. »
All this is about Berlusconi’s friend George Papadopolous, inevitable interlocutor in the Cyprus-Turkey affair, for which the EU does not know how to spend funds at their disposal. « But then » – the U.S. diplomat adds - « We could not expect much from someone who was Milosevic’s lawyer.” »We are too dependent on Russian energy,« Patten insisted in 2004. »Putin seems to be very reasonable when it comes to the Middle East or energy policies, but when it comes to Islamic extremism in Chechnya, his eyes become those of a killer.” It has been dubbed the “Very British Worldview of Chris Patten”, so why did he accept the task of looking after European interests abroad, if these are his beliefs ? Because Europe is very democratic, but it is an alliance, not aunion.

Postări mai noi Postări mai vechi Pagina de pornire