The good, the bad and the Wiki

Not since the publication of the Pentagon Papers has American foreign policy been exposed for what it is.

Julian Assange reminds me of the child in a fairytale who pointed out, in public, that the emperor had no clothes on. With the release of 1,000 or so American diplomatic cables, Assange has stripped away all layers of secrecy the US and its allies had kept away from the public.

For lazy journalists everywhere, WikiLeaks are manna from heaven — or, rather, cyberspace. The windfall of ‘secret’ cables handed journalists all over the world a lot of dirt for which they did not have to go digging. Moreover, there could hardly be denials from those named and shamed. In Pakistan, the efforts at damage control have centred on either alleging WikiLeaks to be a part of some sinister conspiracy, or going overboard in pacifying those against whom derogatory remarks had been made. Or even those who had made such remarks! Zardari, for example, tried to play down King Abdullah’s comments about him by referring to the monarch as his ‘older brother’.

As expected, the WikiLeaks pertaining to Pakistan became the focus of intense media attention in the country. From ‘breaking news’ to talk shows, each channel gave the leaks its own twist. In a programme scripted more at self-projection than WikiLeaks revelations, Shahid Masood on ARY claimed that the cables only confirmed what he had been saying and writing for the past couple of years and that he stood vindicated. He was partly right, of course, as many of the cables confirmed what had been the subject of media speculation in the past two years. When the source is the top US diplomat herself, there is little room for doubt.

Geo saw another chance to attack Zardari and the Peoples Party. Its news headlines and talk shows remained, by and large, focused on the shenanigans of the PPP government vis-a-vis the Americans. Kamran Khan, quoting all the far from salutary remarks that Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer reportedly made about the Saudi king on Twitter, expressed moral outrage at Taseer’s audacity — as if criticism of the monarch amounts to some form of blasphemy.

It came as no surprise either that the army chief got off relatively easier, with no serious questions raised about his role in destabilising the civilian government and expressing his opinions so candidly to Anne Patterson. General Kayani’s response came a week later through an official statement released by the ISPR and restricted itself to reassuring political leaders, rather unconvincingly, that he held them all in respect. No explanation was offered on the actual content of his remarks to the US ambassador. The media reported the official stance without barely any critical comment.

Regrettably, the most severe criticism of WikiLeaks and Assange came from the American leadership and the media i.e. precisely those who are supposed to be upholders of the first amendment of the constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech. Sarah Palin has called Assange a ‘terrorist’ and the mainstream media has not exactly been supportive. Not since the publication of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg in the New York Times in the 70s has American foreign policy been exposed for what it is. However, while the Pentagon Papers dealt with only the issue of American involvement in Vietnam, WikiLeaks have given a panoramic view of what happens between US diplomats and various government leaders behind closed doors. Technology, too, has made all the difference — making the leaks virtually unstoppable.

When the first WikiLeaks relating to the conduct of US forces in Iraq surfaced in July this year, they sent shockwaves among the US government and the military. Little did they know that, drip by drip, Assange would continue to keep them on tenterhooks in the coming months.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 8^th, 2010.