Deep Politics Forum

2010-12-09: UN, international officials in support of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange
Submitted by admin on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 17:36

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, expressed concern at a press conference today over political pressure aiming to discourage provision of hosting and other services to WikiLeaks.

Ms Pillay said: "I am concerned about reports of pressure exerted on private companies including banks, credit card companies and Internet service providers to close down credit lines for donations to Wikileaks, as well as to stop hosting the website."

"This can be interpreted as at attempt to censor the publication of information, and potentially constitutes a violation of WikiLeaks' right to freedom of expression," she said, according to Le Monde.

The UN rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, said in an interview with ABC.net.au that he did not think the US government had grounds to charge Julian Assange or request his extradition. "If there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak and not of the media that publish it," he said. When asked whether he agreed that Assange is "a martyr for free speech," he said "It certainly is (true)."

Mr La Rue said that "in reference to what has been published in WikiLeaks I think there is no criminal responsibility for being the medium." He noted that there are cases that have to be looked at, but "having said that just the fact that the information is embarrassing information to a government does not make it subject to be blocked or filtered or reprisals to the director/founder of the service." He added: "I have made it clear that just the fact that the information is leaked should not be the excuse to pressure any of the enterprises that are serving that information."

(Read the full interview.)

Brazilian President Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday expressed solidarity with Julian Assange, criticising his arrest as a blow against freedom of expression, reports AFP. "Assange has 'exposed a diplomacy that had appeared unreachable,' said Lula, who criticised of a failure of other governments to challenge Assange's detention. 'They have arrested him and I don't hear so much as a single protest for freedom of expression,' he said."

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said, also on Thursday, that the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange showed the West was hypocritical in its criticism of Russia's record on democracy, reports Reuters.

According to a report by The Guardian, Kremlin officials are urging NGOs to nominate Julian Assange for the Nobel Prize: "'Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him,' the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies. Speaking in Brussels, where Medvedev was attending a Russia-EU summit yesterday , the source went on: 'Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate.'"
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Scheer, TruthDig: From Jefferson to Assange

"All you need to know about Julian Assange’s value as a crusading journalist is that The New York Times and most of the world’s other leading newspapers have led daily with important news stories based on his WikiLeaks releases. All you need to know about the collapse of traditional support for the constitutional protection of a free press is that Dianne Feinstein, the centrist Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called for Assange “to be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.”[...]

Feinstein represents precisely the government that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said, in defense of unfettered freedom of the press, “[W]ere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”[...] [T]he inconvenient truths she has concealed in her Senate role would have indeed shocked many of those who voted for her. She knew in real time that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, yet she voted to send young Americans to kill and be killed based on what she knew to be lies. It is her duplicity, along with the leaders of both political parties, that now stands exposed by the WikiLeaks documents.

That is why U.S. governmental leaders will now employ the massive power of the state to discredit and destroy Assange, who dared let the public in on the depths of official deceit—a deceit that they hide behind in making their claims of protecting national security.[...]

It is outrageous for any journalist, or respecter of what every American president has claimed is our inalienable, God-given right to a free press, not to join in Assange’s defense on this issue, as distinct from what increasingly appear to be trumped-up charges that led to his voluntary arrest on Tuesday in London in a case involving his personal behavior. Abandon Assange and you abandon the bedrock of our republic: the public’s right to know."
Read more

Jack Hunter, The American Conservative: The Conservative Case for WikiLeaks

"No one questions that governments must maintain a certain level of secrecy, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who told Time that “Secrecy is important for many things … [but it] shouldn’t be used to cover up abuses.”[...] To say that government must keep secrets is not to say that all government secrets must be kept.[...]

But the worst hypocrisy throughout this controversy has been in conservatives reflexively defending the government and attacking WikiLeaks. Since when have conservatives believed that Washington should be able to shroud any action it likes in secrecy and that revealing government’s nefarious deeds is tantamount to treason? Isn’t it government officials who might secretly work for corporate, ideological or transnational interests — and against the national interest — who are betraying their country?

Interestingly, Wikileaks’ founder espouses the traditionally conservative, Jeffersonian view that America’s constitutional structure limits and lessens government corruption. [...]

Decentralizing government power, limiting it, and challenging it was the Founders’ intent and these have always been core conservative principles. Conservatives should prefer an explosion of whistleblower groups like WikiLeaks to a federal government powerful enough to take them down. Government officials who now attack WikiLeaks don’t fear national endangerment, they fear personal embarrassment. And while scores of conservatives have long promised to undermine or challenge the current monstrosity in Washington, D.C., it is now an organization not recognizably conservative that best undermines the political establishment and challenges its very foundations."
Read more

Glenn Greenwald, Salon: Democracy Now! interview (video)

"Whatever you think of WikiLeaks, they’ve never been charged with a crime, let alone indicted or convicted. And yet, look at what has happened to them. They’ve been essentially removed from the internet, not just through a denial of service attacks that are very sophisticated, but through political pressure applied to numerous countries. Their funds have been frozen, including funds donated by people around the world for his—for Julian Assange’s defense fund and for WikiLeaks’s defense fund. They’ve had their access to all kinds of accounts cut off. Leading politicians and media figures have called for their assassination, their murder, to be labeled a terrorist organization.

What’s really going on here is a war over control of the internet and whether or not the internet can actually serve what a lot of people hoped its ultimate purpose was, which was to allow citizens to band together and democratize the checks on the world’s most powerful factions. That’s what this really is about. It’s why you see Western government, totally lawlessly, waging what can only be described as a war on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange outside the bounds of any constraints, because that’s what really is at stake here. If they want to prosecute them, they should go to court and do it through legal means. But this extralegal persecution ought to be very alarming to every citizen in every one of these countries, because it essentially is pure authoritarianism and is designed to prevent the internet from being used as its ultimate promise, which is providing a check on unconstrained political power."
Watch the video

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, Pravda: Assange, Pinochet, Wikileaks: Prosecution or Persecution?

"However, this is not just a simple case of extradition to Sweden (which under current laws in practice in the EU, would be difficult for Assange and his team to fight against). Basically, he has already been judged by the public through media reports. It could indeed be argued under English law that the case was now null and void.

His right to anonymity has been denied him, his right to a fair and free trial has been violated, due to the fact that as we saw in the Wikileaks, extreme pressure is borne by certain governments against the judicial systems of certain states. Therefore any decision to extradite Mr. Assange comes outside the normal jurisdictional decisions arising out of European law. Read Wikileaks, and we see the full dimension of this monster.

Coupled with this, is the specter of an eventual extradition to the USA, due to what his website has been responsible for, and we see that the British justice system is once again caught up in a Pinochetgate case. If the dictator Augusto Pinochet was released by British justice, after what he did, then Mr. Assange is going to be extradited to Sweden to face the accusations of two "ladies" who shared a bed with him, as a pretext to be then shipped over to the USA, the Queen of waterboarding, torture and mass murder in medieval-style concentration camps?

Maybe it is time for the people of the world to pull together, because what is at stake here is more than a simple accusation. It is where we are, where we are going and what our rights are, as humankind.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not a case. It is a cause. And let us all inform ourselves as to what we can do, and how far we have to go to ensure that the right to free information remains available to all.

Take down Julian Assange, and others will take his place."
Read more

Evan Hansen, Wired: Why WikiLeaks is good for America

"A truly free press — one unfettered by concerns of nationalism — is apparently a terrifying problem for elected governments and tyrannies alike.

It shouldn’t be.[...]

WikiLeaks is not perfect, and we have highlighted many of its shortcomings on this website. Nevertheless, it’s time to make a clear statement about the value of the site and take sides:

WikiLeaks stands to improve our democracy, not weaken it.

The greatest threat we face right now from WikiLeaks is not the information it has spilled and may spill in the future, but the reactionary response to it that’s building in the United States that promises to repudiate the rule of law and our free speech traditions, if left unchecked."
Read more

Mark Lee Hunter, Open Democracy: If Assange is a spy, then so am I

"This is the real secret that Wikileaks has so stunningly recalled to view: Some of the people in our own governments are so disgusted by what they must know, see and do to keep their jobs that they will tell someone else about it. They want certain ways of doing business to stop, and they don't believe that any other means can be effective.[...]

There is no doubt in my mind that a good number of the people screaming for Assange's head would like the news media either to go away, or to function as a docile servant of the powers that be. Of course a society can exist without watchdog media, and many do. But those are generally awful places to live, except for the people who own them.[...]

Hounding Assange and criminalizing whistleblowers will do far more damage to democracy than a pack of scribes and hackers ever could. You don't need to be a spy to guess that secret. The people screaming for Assange's blood are the architects and allies of disastrous policies that are being rejected even within the government. They are trying to conceal their failure, and Wikileaks is the proof that they failed. It must not be silenced, and journalists should be the first to know it."
Read more

Oliver Broudy, Mother Jones: Has Assange Turned Me Into An Anarchist?

"We usually accept this just as we accept partisan gridlock and corporate lobbying: This is the way the system works. We take it for granted that very little can be done about it. Right up to the moment, that is, when someone plants himself, like the Tianamen Square tank man, squarely before the government juggernaut, and refuses to step aside. Then we're treated to an amazing spectacle: This is what it looks like when power squirms. When the US government warns its employees to steer their eyes away from the WikiLeaks documents even though they're on every front page and news site. When Sweden and Interpol, possibly in response to US pressure, pursue trumped up charges against the WikiLeaks founder. When Mike Huckabee calls for alleged leaker Bradley Manning's execution, Sarah Palin says Assange should be "hunted down," and Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.) declares that WikiLeaks should be designated a terrorist organization.[...]

But here's where a final distinction between the anarchist and WikiLeaks revolution reveals itself: Thanks to the internet, where more than 1,200 copies of the WikiLeaks site are currently mirrored, this revolution might actually succeed.

It was precisely this kind of revolution that the internet once promised. In the '90s, we thought it was going to change everything by ushering in a new age of democracy, of equality, of access. Instead, it became just another way to buy shoes. How gratifying, then, to see that promise renewed. And how tempting to finally be able to say: Screw Joe Lieberman."
Read more

Boston Globe editorial: Don't use archaic spy law

"While WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange damaged America’s relations with other countries by releasing some 250,000 diplomatic cables, any attempt to prosecute him under an archaic antispying law would do more harm than good.

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal this week, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California called for Assange to be “vigorously prosecuted’’ under the Espionage Act of 1917. While Assange has not been accused of breaking into the government’s leaky computer networks to steal the cables, his organization was the conduit in making the documents public.[...]

The law is a relic of World War I anxieties, and its very breadth helps explain why it has been used so rarely. It could all too easily be exploited to trample rights Americans take for granted — especially freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The law is vague enough that it could have been used against the journalists who exposed the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, or similar instances of wrongdoing."
Read more

Ian Welsh: Why Assange and Wikileaks have won this round

"Wikileaks and Assange have now been made in to cause celebres. If corporations and governments can destroy someone’s access to the modern economy as they have Wikileaks, without even pretending due process of the law (Paypal, VISA, Mastercard, Amazon, etc… were not ordered by any court to cut Wikileaks) then we simply do not live in a free society of law, let alone a society of justice.

Ironically the Wikileaks files reveal that the British fixed their inquiry into the war, and that the US pressured the Spanish government to stop a war crimes court case against ex-members of the Bush administration. Assange and Wikileaks are subject to extreme judicial and extrajudicial sanctions, but people who engaged in aggressive war based on lies, tortured people and are responsible for deaths well into the six figures, walk free.[...]

It has proved that the West is run by authoritarian thugs with completely twisted priorities. Kill hundreds of thousands of people and engage in aggressive war? No big deal. Cause the greatest economic collapse of the post-war period sending millions into poverty? We couldn’t possibly prosecute the people who did that, but we will give them trillions! Reveal our petty secrets and lies, and that we know the war in Afghanistan is lost, have known for years and continue to kill both Afghanis and our own soldiers pointlessly? We WILL destroy you, no matter what we have to do."

Peter Lemkin Wrote:According to a report by The Guardian, Kremlin officials are urging NGOs to nominate Julian Assange for the Nobel Prize: "'Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him,' the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies. Speaking in Brussels, where Medvedev was attending a Russia-EU summit yesterday , the source went on: 'Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate.'"

Love it!

Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize! - maybe they can get the current year's winner to make the presentation. :five:

Peter Presland Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:According to a report by The Guardian, Kremlin officials are urging NGOs to nominate Julian Assange for the Nobel Prize: "'Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him,' the source from inside president Dmitry Medvedev's office told Russian news agencies. Speaking in Brussels, where Medvedev was attending a Russia-EU summit yesterday , the source went on: 'Maybe, nominate him as a Nobel Prize laureate.'"

Love it!

Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize! - maybe they can get the current year's winner to make the presentation. :five:

Perhaps Putin can buy it for him the same way it appears to have been bought for Obama in advance of the actual vote.

And the same way Putin purchased the 2018 World Cup...

Sorry. I'm being naughty aren't I. :evil:

Indeed! Attack the messenger when you don't like the message. He may not even be guilty of an illegal act. He is not a US citizen and, unless he has in fact signed a non-disclosure agreement, may be guilty of no more than having the gall to embarrass lots of politicians, for which I personally applaud him. When you consider the forces allied against him, he is looking better and better.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

David Guyatt Wrote:I don't think honest debate will ever divide the forum Pete. And I am by no means entirely confident that Assange is who we hope he is. But I think he may be and am prepared to give him the doubt unless or until evidence to the contrary becomes available.

But at the end of the day we don't yet know for sure whether there is a greater game going on behind Wikileaks to stifle all future leaks, whistleblowers etc., from having an internet voice - and whether this simply may have been an opportune reaction to the current Cablegate leaks, or whether this possibility was "gamed" beforehand and then allowed to take place in order to snap the trap shut on us all.

I would like to believe that Assange and Wikileaks are what they make out to be - but all my experience to date says to tread carefully and not allow hope to cloud my ingrained cynicism of deep political possibilities. Many innocent people in the past have been made involuntary dupes by more sinister forces.

But on balance, as it stands, the sheer volume of vitriolic angst again Assange does suggest he is what he claims to be.

But the fact is that we just don't know for sure. Not yet.

And it is, therefore, entirely valid for other members to raise concerns and explore other possibilities and I welcome that interaction.

It is, after all, the underlying rationale and purpose of this forum.

I agree.

Peter L - I understand your concerns, but the disinformation entities have been routinely purged whenever DPF has detected their infiltration into this zone. My antennae are not currently twitching. :knuddel:

So, I consider it constructive that members air their own judgements and post articles which provide different perspectives on, and analyses of, Assange and wikileaks.

David's insightful deconstruction of the IndyBay article is an example of DPF at its best.

So, in the spirit of different perspectives and dialectic, my own view is that the focus on Assange is a sign that the real arguments are being lost and the important issues are being forgotten.

In Their scripts:

i) Assange is cast as the Lone Nut, that the Free World must hunt down Dead or Alive, to protect our children and our economies;

ii) Assange is cast as a sex fiend, preying on vulnerable women;

iii) Assange is cast as a bought and paid for asset of (insert Enemy or Terror Group as appropriate);

iv) Assange is cast as a traitor to wikileaks, in cahoots with Mossad or the CIA or (again insert as appropriate).

All these scripts are available to Them, and are being utilized to divide us.

In my judgement, by focusing on Assange, we are playing Their game. :bandit:

A personal statement:

• In a global world running 24/7/365 with information which is being spun or gamed in real time...[I have already entered an extensive section on PsyOps and MindWar];
  
• on a global discussion board with discussants living in Europe, the US, Australia and elsewhere (and thus subject to and available to the news, more astute about their local news outlets' perspectives and history, and more astute about their sovereign nations' "news management" and propaganda approaches);
  
• on a topic with as much possible portent, potential implication, and sheer weight of information (however valid or invalid it is);
  
• in a situation that has tremendous bearing on the future free flow of information, governmental transparency, or the ability of a group such as ours to even gather and analyze the information;
  
• in a situation that is fast-moving, potentially volatile; and
  
• in a world that is a virtual tinderbox;
  

it is my normal and normative approach to shovel a lot of information into the hopper for further analysis. It serves to illuminate and inform, leaving opinion and analysis to the reader. My early interest and education is in news, not in editorial.

To weed out prematurely, to suggest that certain views are anathema or disallowed, is to defeat the purpose of why we are here doing what we do.

It's almost 50 years later and people are still debating and arguing Dealey Plaza. It's almost a decade since 9/11. Both topics continue to see a lot of information that is pumped into its equation. Knowledgeable veterans of the Dealey Plaza event can discern quickly because much work has been done and much time has passed. 9/11 isn't quite yet at that level despite the presence of the Internet and its higher speeds for information circulation. Analysis must proceed within a global conversation because of the necessary expertise being separated by time and space. The question of some prior or ongoing assessment for validity of source has already been suggested here and elsewhere by me, as have leads to sources of information about critical thinking.

I appreciate and have said that I am a relative newcomer to this business of deep political reading, research and analysis. I have a great degree of respect for many people here, like David Guyatt and others, and if he has dismantled a post, then so be it. That is, as has already been said, the nature of the process. My hat is off to him. No skin off my teeth. No wounded ego. Delete it. As a single individual who is currently also dealing with other matters, I do not have the luxury of snap judgments or universalized knowledge or expertise. What is left standing after extensive analysis by many is at least a magnitude closer to understanding; time will allow even more analysis.

But one cannot drink from a fire hose. Wikileaks is an ongoing event. JFK has been buried, but comparably on the Wikileaks story, it is only 1964. FOIA videos and photos from 9/11 continue to emerge, but comparably on the Wikileaks story, it is only November 30th, 2001.

Premature analysis and conclusion is more dangerous that any lack of discernment in entering information or theory, particularly in an environment that is arguably on the edge of both information black-out and nuclear war.

How many leaks does it take to become a threat to humanity?

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Thursday, December 9, 2010 - 4:32 PM Share



While the demonization of Julian Assange continues apace, the following thought occurred to me (it probably occurred to you already). Suppose a reporter like David Sanger or Helene Cooper of the New York Times had been given a confidential diplomatic cable by a disgruntled government employee (or "unnamed senior official"). Suppose it was one of the juicier cables recently released by Wikileaks. Suppose further that Sanger or Cooper had written a story based on that leaked information, and then put the text of the cable up on the Times website so that readers could see for themselves that the story was based on accurate information. Would anyone be condemning them? I doubt it. Whoever actually leaked the cable might be prosecuted or condemned, but the journalists who published the material would probably be praised, and their colleagues would just be jealous that somebody else got a juicy scoop.
So if one leaked cable is just normal media fodder, how about two or three? What about a dozen? What's the magic number of leaks that turns someone from an enterprising journalist into the Greatest Threat to our foreign policy since Daniel Ellsberg? In fact, hardly anyone seems to be criticizing the Times or Guardian for having a field day with the materials that Wikileaks provided to them (which is still just a small fraction of the total it says it has), and nobody seems to hounding the editors of these publications or scouring the penal code to find some way to prosecute them.
I don't know if the sex crime charges against Assange in Sweden have any merit, and I have no idea what sort of person he really is (see Robert Wright here for a thoughtful reflection on the latter issue). I also find it interesting that the overwrought U.S. reaction to the whole business seems to be reinforcing various anti-American stereotypes. But the more I think about it, the less obvious it is to me why the man is being pilloried for doing wholesale what establishment journalists do on a retail basis all the time.

Quote:How many leaks does it take to become a threat to humanity?

None. No leak can threaten humanity. Any leak can threaten the powerful with things to hide though.

Now, what is it they try to tell us when they want to know all about us? If you have nothing to hide there is nothing to worry about.

Anonymous Running Attacks on Anti-Wikileaks Sites with Low Orbit Ion Cannon

December 9th, 2010 LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon):
I don’t know if these attacks are part of some kind of PSYOP, but they certainly play into the pre-existing script for curtailing freedom on the Internet. Mike McConnell, former NSA Director, former Director of National Intelligence and now, Booz Allen Hamilton Senior Vice President, has said that we need to re-engineer the Internet:
And now…
Via: BBC:
The data war between companies that have refused to do business with Wikileaks and the online activists keen to defend it is getting more intense.
The tool through which attacks are carried out against websites perceived to be anti-Wikileaks has now been downloaded more than 31,000 times.
Security experts warned people to avoid joining the voluntary botnet.
Targets of the loose-knit group Anonymous have so far included Visa, Mastercard and Paypal.
Amazon is expected to be among firms targeted next using the Anonymous attack tool known as LOIC. When a person installs the tool on their PC it enrols the machine into a voluntary botnet which then bombards target sites with data.
Distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks are illegal in many countries, including the UK.
Social network Facebook confirmed that it had removed Operation Payback – as the campaign is known – from the site because it was promoting its attack tool.
Posted in COINTELPRO, Covert Operations, False Flag Operations, Infrastructure, Technology, War

U.S. Tells Uganda: Consult Us Before Using Intelligence to Commit Atrocities

December 9th, 2010 Via: Guardian:
The US told Uganda to let it know when the army was going to commit war crimes using American intelligence – but did not try to dissuade it from doing so, the US embassy cables suggest.
America was supporting the Ugandan government in its fight against rebel movement the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), providing information and $4.4m (£2.8m) worth of military hardware a year.
But a year ago officials became concerned that the Ugandans were guilty of war crimes in the long-running battle against Joseph Kony’s rebel movement, which is famed for its brutal atrocities and abduction of children.
Jerry Lanier, the US ambassador to Kampala, reported on 16 December to Washington that the country’s defence minister, Crispus Kiyonga, had verbally assured him that American intelligence was being used “in compliance with Ugandan law and the law of armed conflict. This pledge includes the principles of proportionality, distinction and humane treatment of captured combatants.”
But Lanier continued: “Uganda understands the need to consult with the US in advance if the [Ugandan army] intends to use US-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not government [sic] by the law of armed conflict. Uganda understands and acknowledges that misuse of this intelligence could cause the US to end this intelligence sharing relationship.”
Nowhere, though, does it appear that the ambassador directly told the Ugandans to observe the rules of war.

Australia: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal Secret Ties Between Rudd Coup Plotters and US Embassy

by Patrick O’Connor



Global Research, December 9, 2010
World Socialist Web Site

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

0diggsdigg
9Share

The latest batch of the several hundred leaked US diplomatic cables concerning Australia, provided by WikiLeaks to the Fairfax company’s Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age, provide further extraordinary evidence of Washington’s direct involvement in the anti-democratic coup against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last June.
Key coup plotters in the Labor Party and trade unions—including senators Mark Arbib and David Feeney, and Australian Workers Union chief Paul Howes—secretly provided the US embassy with regular updates on internal government discussions and divisions within the leadership. As early as June 2008, the American ambassador identified Julia Gillard as the “front-runner” to replace Rudd. In October 2009, i.e., eight months before Gillard was installed in unprecedented circumstances, Mark Arbib informed American officials of emerging leadership tensions. The Australian people, on the other hand, were kept entirely in the dark about any differences between the prime minister and his colleagues until after Rudd was ousted.
Gillard was described, some two years before the coup, by US diplomatic officials as the “rising star” within the Labor government. They made various enquiries into Gillard’s foreign policy sympathies, receiving assurances from government sources that her origins in the party’s “left” faction had no policy significance whatsoever. Arbib told the embassy that Gillard was “one of the most pragmatic politicians in the ALP”; Victorian senator David Feeney added that “there is no longer any intellectual integrity in the factions” and that “there is no major policy issue on which he, a Right factional leader, differs from Gillard”. When embassy officials checked on Gillard with Paul Howes, Australian Workers Union boss and subsequent anti-Rudd coup plotter, observing that “ALP politicians from the Left, no matter how capable, do not become party leader,” he responded immediately: “but she votes with the Right’.”
The Sydney Morning Herald and Age have published parts of the latest material in excerpted form, ahead of their full public release expected in coming weeks. They focus today on Mark Arbib’s role as a “secret US source”. One of the key apparatchiks in Labor’s powerful New South Wales right-wing faction, Arbib reportedly made several requests to US officials that his identity as a “protected” informant be guarded.
The cables refer to Arbib as early as mid-2006, when he served as NSW Labor Party state secretary. After being elected to the senate in the November 2007 federal election, the factional leader deepened his relationship with Washington. A US embassy profile, authored in July 2009, noted that Arbib “understands the importance of supporting a vibrant relationship with the US” and that officials “have found him personable, confident and articulate”. The profile also recorded that he “has met with us repeatedly throughout his political rise”. Other cables referred to the senator as a “right-wing powerbroker and political rising star” and noted his influence within both Labor’s factions and “Rudd’s inner circle”.
The cables make clear that Arbib and the other identified MPs function not simply as mere US “sources”, as characterised in the media today—but rather as agents. Within the Labor and trade unions apparatuses, these party members serve as conduits for Washington’s agenda. The embassy communications reveal the extent to which the US government determines Australian foreign policy and dictates who will hold senior government posts, including the office of prime minister.
A precise chronology of Washington’s sordid, behind-the-scenes manipulation of Australian political affairs, between the Labor Party’s election victory in November 2007 and Rudd’s axing in June 2010, is likely to emerge once WikiLeaks releases the full cache of relevant cables.
Already, however, it is now beyond dispute that Washington began cultivating Gillard at the same time as embassy officials were issuing damning assessments of Rudd, above all over his stance on Beijing. In June 2008, the same month Gillard was named as the “front-runner” to succeed Rudd, the prime minister unveiled his Asia-Pacific Community project, attempting to mediate the escalating strategic rivalry between the US and China. An American embassy cable lambasted this proposal as yet another Rudd initiative launched “without advance consultation”. (See: “WikiLeaks cables cast fresh light on coup against former Australian PM Rudd”)
Beginning at this time, the Fairfax press reports: “US diplomats were anxious to establish Ms Gillard’s attitudes towards Australia’s alliance with the United States and other key foreign policy questions, especially in regard to Israel. Numerous Labor figures were drawn by US diplomats into conversation concerning Ms Gillard’s personality and political positions with ‘many key ALP insiders’ quickly telling embassy officers that her past membership of the Victorian Labor Party’s Socialist Left faction meant little and that she was ‘at heart a pragmatist’.”
Gillard was undoubtedly aware that she was being sounded out. One cable sent to the State Department in mid-2008 stated: “Although long appearing ambivalent about the Australia-US Alliance, Gillard’s actions since she became the Labor Party number two indicate an understanding of its importance. [US embassy political officers] had little contact with her when she was in opposition but since the election, Gillard has gone out of her way to assist the embassy... Although warm and engaging in her dealings with American diplomats, it’s unclear whether this change in attitude reflects a mellowing of her views or an understanding of what she needs to do to become leader of the ALP.”
These comments outline who really calls the shots in Australia’s so-called parliamentary democracy. Labor leaders must understand “what they need to do”—that is, kowtow on every major strategic and foreign policy issue to Washington. They need to recognise that Australia is an obedient servant of US imperialism, and that its political superstructure must function accordingly.
Arbib issued a terse statement today, simply outlining that he was an active member of the Australia-American Leadership Dialogue, and “like many members of the federal parliament, have regular discussions about the state of Australian and US politics with members of the US mission and consulate”. Contained here is a fairly clear warning, by Labor’s key backroom operator, to anyone in the government thinking of using the revelations against him. Arbib has helpfully reminded them that he enjoys Washington’s support, and that others are sure to be implicated as more cables are released.
The Fairfax press has already named former Labor national secretary and Rudd government cabinet member Bob McMullen and current backbencher Michael Danby as among those named in the WikiLeaks documents. Others likely to be named are starting to come out of the woodwork, in an effort to pre-empt the fallout. Health Minister Nicola Roxon today volunteered that she is likely to be identified, as she “meets with US diplomats from time to time”. Greens’ leader Bob Brown has foreshadowed similar revelations—though he was at pains to point out that he was always “very careful” in his responses, and spoke with diplomats “from all over the world, from Bangladesh to the US to New Zealand, Taiwan and Beijing”.
The cables will no doubt reveal similar relationships between Washington and senior Australian media personnel. Editors, journalists, and broadcasters are routinely nurtured through the Australia-American Leadership Dialogue, and other such forums.
The excerpted cables also expose the close working relationship between the US government and Australia’s trade unions. The Fairfax press noted that “senior union leaders have privately briefed US officials about how they use their influence over the Labor Party to shape federal government policies”, and cited an August 2009 cable, which stated that the trade unions “continue to play a significant role in the formulation of national policies that can impact the United States”. Discussions between US embassy officials and senior figures in the Australian Workers Union and the National Union of Workers were reported, with one cable declaring that the leaders of the right-wing unions were “dynamic and forward thinking”.
The same cable reportedly described the declining influence of the “left” unions within the Labor Party, a conclusion that was “drawn partly through briefings from CFMEU [Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union] national secretary Dave Noonan and Victorian secretary Bill Oliver”. These two figures—often hailed as great militants by the various middle class pseudo-left outfits—were described by US embassy officials as “capable leaders”.