December 10 , 2010
Fussing and Fuming over Wikileaks Documents
Pakistan ’s vocal politicians and media commentators have been fussing and fuming since November 28 when the whistleblower website, Wikileaks, posted the first batch of illegally acquired confidential messages between the US State Department and its stations abroad, including Islamabad.
Operators of the website have since been releasing in batches selected documents from a trove of over 250,000 that were furnished surreptitiously by a US army code clerk and analyst, Bradley Manning, now in military custody. The country-less site was set up by an Australian, Julian Assange, 39, in 2006, under the rubric of freedom of information. He keeps moving from country to country and is currently wanted by Interpol for questioning in Sweden over the alleged rape and molestation of two women. To his fans and colleagues he is a valiant campaigner for truth. To his critics, he is but a publicity fiend. He is thought to be in Britain at the time of writing.
Of the quarter of a million documents, only 15,652 are classified as Secret. The Top Secret messages, whose disclosure can seriously damage relations with some foreign power, are conveyed through totally secure channels. None of those is in the dollop. The messages that Manning could access were meant to be available to a vast range of policy makers. Yet, the contents in some of the messages released by the website so far, have been a source of severe embarrassments for the State Department. Secretary Clinton has been talking to her counterparts in the concerned countries to control the damage and assuage the hurt feelings over the breach of confidence.
Foreign leaders and other sources would no longer be candid in the expression of their views; their talks with American diplomats would be driven by caution. The diplomats too would be careful in their reports, lest their candor, in case of disclosure, earn them the displeasure, if not vengeance, of their contacts in foreign lands.
Advances in digital technologies have increased the possibility of holes in the wall of secrecy and reduced the prerogative of secrecy to hide the misdeeds of the leaders of a state. The more the transparency and accountability, the better it would be for the people at large.
The documents released so far reveal the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors. For instance, the US tolerance of corruption and human rights abuses in its “client states” and its support to the leaders that kowtow to the American ambassador are abundantly clear. Several such instances come to light in the messages about Pakistan. Some of the significant reports are mentioned below:
· Gen. Kayani informed the US ambassador that he had thought of removing and sending Zardari into exile during the Long March days. (He was perhaps seeking the reaction of the US to such an action on his part.)
· Zardari disclosed that Benazir Bhutto had come to Pakistan after getting ‘clearance’ from the US. (A reiteration of Bhutto’s and his own loyalty)
· Zardari showed Benazir’s will to Ambassador Anne Patterson to convince her that he was the genuine heir.
· ISI chief tells the Americans that Zardari is corrupt!
· Zardari says Amin Fahim had spent most of the 2008 election time in Dubai with his latest 22-year-old wife.
· Maulana Fazlur Rehman asks the American ambassador to support his PM candidacy.
· Asfandyar Wali asks for US help to convince Nawaz Sharif and Zardari for his candidacy.
· Kayani tells the ambassador that he dislikes Nawaz more than Zardari.
· UK Air Force Chief, Marshal Jock Stirrup called Zardari a numbskull who knew nothing about running a country.
· Nawaz assured the ambassador that he supported the US.
· Zardari expressed the apprehension that he might be eliminated by Gen. Kayani. In that case he would like his sister Faryal Talpur to succeed him. Kayani thought Faryal would make a better President than her brother.
· ”While far from perfect, you (special envoy, Richard Holbrooke) will find Zardari is pro-American and anti-extremist, we believe he is our best ally in government…Zardari is more adept at political maneuvering than governing; we believe he is spending too much time on his rivalry with Nawaz and too little time on rolling back a spreading insurgency and improving a weak economy” -- Ambassador Patterson.
· The Ambassador told Zardari and Rehman Malik that the US was unhappy over the release of A. Q. Khan. Both promised that Khan would be kept under wraps.
· Saudi King Abdullah said that President Zardari was “the greatest obstacle” to Pakistan’s progress. “When the head is rotten, it affects the whole body”.
The above reports and statements reflect who exactly is calling the shots in Pakistan. Almost all leaders appear ingratiating themselves with the Americans. Their already dented public image, after the disclosures, lies in tatters and rags. Both the President and the PM of Pakistan come across as weaklings who would want to consult the US for everything. General Kayani too has received a major dent in his carefully nurtured image of a politically neutral commander who could say no to the US. A senior military commander has been quoted by Dawn of December 4 as saying: “It is one thing for a foreign diplomat to say that we are not ‘observers’ but ‘participants ‘ in Pakistan, but is a matter of immense dishonor when our people also begin to believe the same thing.”
While President Ayub contended that his country wanted “Friends Not Masters”, Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto tore the letter of the American ambassador at a public meeting as a gesture of the defiance of US dictation, the present leadership has elected to go back to the colonial period of servitude by carrying out the vice-regal commands of the American ambassador.
The public postures of Pakistani leaders on the leaks, merely add to be bitterness of the cup. The top detective of the country, the Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, has belittled the significance of the leaks by calling them a “big joke”, arguing that an individual cannot steal the secrets of a state. The Italian Foreign Minster has, on the other hand, called it the “9/11 of diplomacy” and it would “blow up the trust between states”.
Contrary to the assertion of Mr. Rehman Malik, Prof. Michael Cox, a fellow at London’s famous think-tank, Chatham House, has pointed out, “It is a sign that in the information age, it is very difficult to keep anything secret”.
Mr. Rehman Malik would be well advised to avoid making off-the-cuff, ill-conceived statements and emulating the ostrich.
The Prime Minister, realizing the likely repercussions of the leaks on Pakistan, discussed the matter in the Defense Committee of the Cabinet on December 3. The decisions taken had not become available till the time of writing this column.
The Jamaat-I-Islami chief, Munnawar Hasan, thought that the documents were released to create rifts in the Muslim world. This myopic interpretation is contradicted by the documents on several European countries and leaders.
Maulana Fazlur Rehman denied that he ever approached the American ambassador for support of his candidature for the country’s premiership.
The President’s spokesman is uncharacteristically silent on the matter despite several derogatory references to his boss. The crucial observation, however, is that Mr. Zardari is the best person in the circumstances to be the President from the viewpoint of US national interests.
The future historians might record the present era as the darkest for the people of Pakistan as no major problem has been solved and their own leaders have sabotaged their dignity as an independent nation.
arifhussaini@hotmail.com , 714-345-2654
