Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H2) on 11/27/10:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (8 comments)

Official Washington Worries WikiLeak Will Reveal Inconsistent Approach to Terror

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend
Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (9 fans)   -- Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com

(originally published by The Nation)

Usually, when a WikiLeaks document dump is in the offering, US officials play like it could not possibly matter.

"More of the same," "nothing new," "just a repeat of what everyone was already aware of": these have been the standard lines.

But not this time. Washington is abuzz with Holiday weekend talk about how officials at the White House, the Department of Defense and the State Department are "holding their breath" in troubled anticipation of an imminent release of thousands of classified documents by the controversial website.

WikiLeaks is tweeting that officials in Washington are "hyperventilating again over fears of being held to account."

That's not hype. They really are worried this time.

Why so? Because this release of documents could pull back the curtain on how the United States practices international diplomacy.

To understand why this matters, consider two related realities:

1. Many, if not all, of the US officials who deal on the international stage tend to like secrecy, as it allows them to play by different rules when dealing with countries that are deemed "allies" or "rogues." In other words, despite the blunt official talk about how the "war of terror" is a universal endeavor, the United States sometimes casts a blind eye toward-or even works with-groups that are identified as practicing terrorism.

2. These powerful players often feel threatened by transparency, as it reveals when they are allow allied states to act like rogue states. This gets especially messy when "friendly" governments are allowed to get away with actions that the U.S. otherwise identifies as being so serious that might justify economic sanctions or even a military response.

Understand these facts and you will understand why official Washington is worried by this particular WikiLeak.

Reportedly, the next leak-which could come this weekend-will include "hundreds of thousands of classified State cables that detail private diplomatic discussions with other governments, potentially compromising discussions with dissidents, and even, reportedly, corruption allegations against foreign governments."

Among other things, international press accounts suggest, the new WikiLeak will include a military report revealing that the US officials were aware that the Turkish government allowed its citizens to aid AlQaeda in Iraq. An additional document will, according to London's Al-Hayat newspaper, reveal that the U.S. aided Kurdish separatist rebels whose group, the PKK, is listed by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.

Turkey is a complex country located at a critical crossroads for the United States. It is no secret that U.S. officials have always applied different sets of rules when dealing with it.

The problem is that the public revelation of the differences between US treatment of Turkey and, say, Iran, could be more than embarrassing. It could call into question whether US officials are consistent in their condemnation of terrorism and of countries that condone terrorism.

Of course, that's not what State Department officials are saying publicly.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

John Nichols, a pioneering political blogger, has written the Online Beat since 1999. His posts have been circulated internationally, quoted in numerous books and mentioned in debates on the floor of Congress.

Nichols writes about politics (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

According To Webster Tarpley: by Charlene Richards on Sunday, Nov 28, 2010 at 3:09:35 PM
Link to Napolitano? by Guitar Chris on Sunday, Nov 28, 2010 at 3:13:27 PM
According To Webster Tarpley: by Charlene Richards on Sunday, Nov 28, 2010 at 3:11:37 PM
Tarpley and Jones by Vaikunthanath Kaviraj on Monday, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:03:12 PM
Let It All Out by Ed Encho on Sunday, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:18:57 PM
No one? by Guitar Chris on Monday, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:49:44 AM
Capitalism and Civilisation. by Vaikunthanath Kaviraj on Monday, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:58:39 PM
Private Capital? by Guitar Chris on Wednesday, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:44:42 PM