"... The world has lousy diplomacy now. It’s dysfunctional. The world corps diplomatique are weak, really weak, and the US diplomatic corps, which used to be the senior and best-engineered outfit there, is rattling around bottled-up in blast-proofed bunkers. It’s scary how weak and useless they are. ..."Amen, brother, especially since the Clintons have been stirring the diplomatic pot. Although I don't agree, that since the mid-1960's, that the U.S. diplomatic corps "used to be the senior and best-engineered outfit there" by any means. Career U.S. diplomats have been underpaid, over tasked, and generally over managed by political hacks, since the JFK era; Eisenhower was the last U.S. President to accord any real respect, funding, and tolerance to State, and that was mainly because of John Foster Dulles and his lesser remembered brother at the CIA, Allen Welsh Dulles.
[Julian Assange] is something we don't yet have words for.posted by shothotbot at 5:58 PM on December 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
He’s a different, modern type of serious troublemaker. He’s certainly not a “terrorist,” because nobody is scared and no one got injured. He’s not a “spy,” because nobody spies by revealing the doings of a government to its own civil population. He is orthogonal. He’s asymmetrical. He panics people in power and he makes them look stupid. And I feel sorry for them. But sorrier for the rest of us.
I don't think there's any damage. I don't think there's any substantive damage, no. Look, some of the cables are embarrassing . . . but nothing that I'm aware of that goes to the essence of the relationship that would allow another nation to say: 'they lied to me, we don't trust them, they really are not dealing fairly with us.'Robert M. Gates, current US Secretary of Defense and former Director of Central Intelligence (head of the CIA) on damage from Wikileaks:
Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.posted by NortonDC at 8:16 PM on December 22, 2010 [11 favorites]
So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.
Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.
“To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. Firstly we must understand what aspect of government or neocorporatist behavior we wish to change or remove. Secondly we must develop a way of thinking about this behavior that is strong enough carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity. Finally must use these insights to inspire within us and others a course of ennobling, and effective action.”By "remove," Assange may not, in a charitable reading, be talking about armed revolt, or, perhaps, he may. But just because Assange himself may be banal, doesn't mean his image, efforts, and writings in service of such "goals" aren't dangerous to mainstream society, in much the same ways radical right writings have proven, distilled through the likes of Tim McVeigh. I think that's a fair reading of some of Sterling's points in this article, and I agree with him about that.
Julian Assange, “State and Terrorist Conspiracies”
Meaningless rhetorical flourish?Rhetoric far more inflammatory than this gets routinely thrown around by people running for national office.
"... So Wikileaks is a manifestation of something that this has been growing all around us, for decades, with volcanic inexorability. The NSA is the world’s most public unknown secret agency. And for four years now, its twisted sister Wikileaks has been the world’s most blatant, most publicly praised, encrypted underground site.You can disagree with the conclusions Sterling is arguing, or my analyses of Assange's writing, but to say that my arguments "lack all integrity" is kind of like tossing sand in the bull's eyes, isn't it?
Wikileaks is “underground” in the way that the NSA is “covert”; not because it’s inherently obscure, but because it’s discreetly not spoken about.
The NSA is “discreet,” so, somehow, people tolerate it. Wikileaks is “transparent,” like a cardboard blast shack full of kitchen-sink nitroglycerine in a vacant lot. ..."
"To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed."Why use charged words like "radically," "boldly" and "regime" if you're not potentially code switching to a particular audience?
We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. Firstly we must understand what aspect of government or neocorporatist behavior we wish to change or remove.Ways to act in which our forebears could not? I guess he's not talking about the storming of the bastille then, cos thats been done before. Also the word 'remove' that you focus on so much is referring to a behaviour (as in 'change or remove a behaviour'). Did you miss that?
It does raise an interesting question -- what exactly does a guy like Julian Assange want? What does he want that someone, anyone, can give him? Not celebrity, not money, not power ... What is left?Pussy.
Indeed, but it's a short step from prescriptive morality to coercion. One day you're talking about what policies you think would best benefit regional development ... the next you're propping up some right-wing dictatorship or justifying some new flavor of stalinism.What?
Can you please explain to me why you think that happened? The article that you linked to about it seems to say essentially the exact opposite: Foreign contractors hired "dancing boys", and an official from the Afghan government "begged" the American embassy to quash the story, and the Americans refused. Then, in fact, an article about the incident appeared in the Washington Post, well before the current Wikileaks brouhaha.But Sterling again has it right--turns out the government is being honest with us--and there are few surprises.Pardon my Anglo-Saxon, but bull-fucking-shit! It's a surprise to me that:
* the government pressured a reporter to not report on a contractor helping to procure boy-whores for warlords
He [the Afghan interior minister] insisted that a journalist looking into the incident should be told that the story would endanger lives, and that the US should try to quash the story. But US diplomats cautioned against an "overreaction" and said that approaching the journalist involved would only make the story worse.I've read the cable in question; I didn't see anything other than a report that the Afghan official requested this. Can you point to further information showing that the US government pressured a reporter not to report on this, please? Thank you.
"Code switching" doesn't mean secret messages. If your'e going to be this pompous, you need to at least know what you're responding too. You've repeatedly made a strawman out of other posters in this thread, and whether it's out of malice or ignorance, it makes your posts not worth any one else's time.Yeah, except paulsc was using "code switching" to imply that Assange was trying to secretly communicate with radical followers by using loaded terminology, and therefore saying he wanted to violently overthrow governments. That's pretty far into crazytown, and it's also an example of strawmanning in and of itself.
One is inside the democratic process, the other has contempt for it.Only if you consider American voters the only ones who matter. I don't think Spain, Italy and German voters appreciate the US government. That's what shows real contempt for democracy. Simply "operating with a democratic process" doesn't make you a democrat. Karl Rove and Kathrine Harris were "inside the democratic process" when they ran around suppressing votes.
Is Amnesty International concerned about the potential for harm to individuals as a result of the leaked information?I'll say again: please go read their official statement for yourself, and if you can find anything to back up your claim that Amnesty International is critical of Wikileaks, then please post it here.
Amnesty International has consistently called on Wikileaks to make every possible effort to ensure that individuals are not put at increased risk of violence or other human rights abuses as a result of, for instance, being identifiable as sources in the documents.
However, risks of this kind are not the same as the risk of public embarrassment or calls for accountability that public officials could face if documents expose their involvement in human rights abuses or other forms of misconduct.
An estimated 180,000 private contractors working in Iraq are immune from local criminal prosecution for criminal conduct because of regulations originally imposed by the US government. Thousands more in Afghanistan have immunity because of a US-Afghanistan agreement. In addition, a patchwork of US federal laws leaves many contractors effectively immune from prosecution in the United States as well.It's possible. But making contractors obey even the most basic of laws is something our government doesn't want to do for some reason. This behavior continues is because they can deny that such illegal activities occur, and lean on the handful of major media companies to keep any unfortunate truth out of the limelight long enough to make a difference.
Legislation sponsored by Rep. David Price (D-NC) would partially address this situation by extending the reach of a federal law, called the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), to cover all US contractors overseas. Currently, only Department of Defense (DOD) contractors and other contractors supporting US forces are explicitly covered by the law. Thousands of contractors employed by other US agencies may be immune from prosecution in US courts when they commit felonies outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
The issue of criminal offenses by US contractors garnered national attention last month when employees of the American security firm Blackwater allegedly shot and killed 11 Iraqi civilians. Under Iraqi law, initially imposed by US occupation authorities in 2004, all non-Iraqi contractors are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts. Because the Blackwater employees were contracted by the State Department – not DOD – prosecutors must first establish that they are acting in support of DOD in order to bring a case under MEJA. Alternatively, if it were determined that their acts were grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, they could be prosecuted under the US War Crimes Act, but to date no one has been prosecuted under this act.
Price’s legislation (HR 2740) would clarify that any US contractor who commits a felony while operating in Iraq or Afghanistan is liable to federal criminal prosecution under MEJA, regardless of what agency issued the contract. The bill would also require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish on-the-scene teams in those countries to investigate alleged criminal misconduct and fatalities linked to US contractors, which would greatly enhance the ability of the Department of Justice to hold accountable those who violate the law. (source)
[It] it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government. . . a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.(Aside: It's always amazing to watch pro-market people argue against democratic institutions. As if adding money to the self-interest equation makes things less corruptible.)
Its because his words and actions don't match. Everything he's doing, no matter what he's doing, is making governance more difficult.Why should anyone care?
Its inherently undemocraticBut you obviously don't care about democracy anywhere else in the world. I don't think the average Nigerian voter appreciates the fact that Shell runs their country and brags about it to American diplomats. Or that the Swedish opposition party promised American diplomats not to withdraw troops from Afghanistan while campaigning on not doing it.
Shell, Halliburton and a few others have been the subject of a wide ranging and ongoing criminal probe in Nigeria for some time now.I'm not aware of any cases against Shell in Nigeria, and the case with halliburton was settled a couple days ago. I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that Shell execs were bragging about infiltrating the Nigerian government.
but it sidesteps one rather crucial question: if Bradley Manning wasleaking documents because his conscience was outraged by an unjust war, why did he join the military in 2006? By which time the Abu Ghraib events had come to light, several people had been imprisoned for their involvement, WMD were widely agreed to be absent, and Iraq had fallen into a bloody civil war. According to chat logs, Manning began leaking material in late November 2009.What was he, 18? 19? Maybe he believed they hype, which he was only disabused of when reading all the cables. I mean we all say we "all kind of knew" but that isn't really true and it's less likely to be true to someone who's 18. It's not like it's talked about that way on the news.
I mean we all say we "all kind of knew" but that isn't really true and it's less likely to be true to someone who's 18. It's not like it's talked about that way on the news.That was just an isolated incident perpetrated by bad apples. Don't you watch the news?
Ah, bullshit.
tl;dr of Stirling: this will end badly. I think he is right about that and I also think he's got some insight into the situation. I note the Economist essay by W.W. is simply snarking/sniping at strawman assumptions about where Bruce is coming from, rather than addressing the underlying problem of infantile nerd-rage by cypherpunks not being particularly astute or effective in achieving desired results.That's the underlying problem? Julian Assange was Le Monde's man of the year; he was Time Mag's #3. Wikileaks has revealed all kinds of things but what's important here? Not the actual effect on the world but the fact that Assange apparently reminds some people of annoying nerds they know and really it's much more important that annoying people learn their place then whether or not "brown people" get blown up or whatever.
With all this information at our fingertips, we seem to know less and be less certain of it than ever.This is like saying the printing press made us dumber.
the underlying problem of infantile nerd-rage by cypherpunks not being particularly astute or effective in achieving desired results.The results are already achieved. The USG is having to lockdown its secret networks and restrict the number of people that have access to them, thereby reducing their effectiveness at undemocratic backroom deals that are made without consulting the people they are supposed to represent.
I strongly suspect the root problem with Assange's analysis (which can fairly be called a monolithic conspiracy theory)They aren't called theories after they have been thoroughly documented. And Assange's model is nothing close to monolithic:
Where details are known as to the inner workings of authoritarian regimes, we see conspiratorial interactions among the political elite, not merely for preferment or favor within the regime, but as the primary planning methodology behind maintaining or strengthening authoritarian power.This behavior has been documented since the beginning of time. The definition of tyranny is someone acting on your behalf without consulting you. There is no difference between a king sending his troops to war for pride, a dictator taking your land without compensation, or a diplomat making business deals in secret.
Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people’s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.
-Assange in 2006
The Press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people. -Justice Hugo L. Black
is the failure to realize that: 1) all secrets do not conceal crimesSecrecy is the only required ingredient for successful crimes. That's why we don't trust any public official with it.
2) political establishments are composed of different elites engaged in power struggle with each other, and 3) most importantly, scandals are not about the content, but about the power struggles.Oh, please. That's like saying bank robbery isn't about the money, but the thrill of robbing the bank. They aren't betting a dollar in some ridiculous egalitarian pissing contest. They are closing business deals for powerful people in exchange for lobbying dollars, kickbacks, and a nice cushy job once they are out of the public sector.
Assange sought to create a provocation where a power struggle would break out.No, Assange seeks to make it more difficult for corrupt government officials to conspire.
Assange provoked the power structure. Unfortunately, he appears to have provoked it into a new cycle of reactionary repression.That's how change occurs. You make the power elite enforce their own rules publicly, and hope the public responds with political action. Slavery didn't end until the civil rights movement made their injustice undeniable and public. British imperialism didn't end in India until they forced their injustice into the spotlight.
Assange and Manning are not tragic heros undone by character as fate. They are self-righteous zealots who will historically just be part of the problem.They are two men who are being persecuted for allowing US citizens to know what the US government is doing.
Short answer: they are doing it wrong.Justice delayed is justice denied. If you've got a better plan to get more democratic results more quickly, let's hear it.
Yes, the underlying problem why Wikilieaks disclosures are getting smothered is that Assange put together a network that is predicated on being a third party game changer standing outside the power structure. And that's not the way it works.Not the way what works?
AUSTRALIA'S ambassador to Japan has been implicated in the mishandling of an Australian-Chinese man used as an informal spy for Australia more than 25 years ago.
Wang Jianping, a former chauffeur for Chinese political leaders, was recruited by Murray McLean, then a diplomat in China, according to a report on the ABC's The 7.30 Report.
Really. Under the law, how is the State Department supposed to "punish" a company? What law can the State Department use to punish a corporation? This isn't make shit up time. You have to have the authority to do stuff, to do it. This is basic law.Foreign corrupt practices act? I thought you were a lawyer.
Not only that, but Congress has zero power to regulate foreign affairs. In that realm, the President is like a king of old. The congress lacks power under the Constitution to regulate it. Doesn't anyone read the Constitution anymore?Which is obviously why congress needs to ratify treaties, not the president. Or why congress needs to declare war, or even assemble armies in the first place.
There's been no scandal, because the corruption revealed by the leaks is the kind of corruption in which both parties have indulged for generations, and so there is no political advantage to be gained by exploiting it, short of a revolution.Well, the US isn't the only country in the world. This is going to have a pretty big fallout in Europe, in places like Sweden (which is apparently a secret member of NATO) or countries where the US intervened in the legal process.
Uh, don't know if you've been following the polls, but outside of the 18-24 set, Assange polls like a fucking lead balloon.Right... because obviously America is the only country that matters, American voters are the only ones who matter, and so on. This encapsulates your ideology pretty clearly:
I'm supposed to care what the German voters think? No. I live here, I vote here.Also, the reason people don't engage with you "logically" is that your "logic" is completely incoherent. Logic is based on formal axioms, of which you have supplied zero. Since you haven't done that, nothing you have said has been "logical" by any measure whatsoever.
(02:20:57 AM) Manning: well, it was forwarded to WLposted by empath at 4:33 PM on December 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
(02:21:18 AM) Manning: and god knows what happens now
(02:22:27 AM) Manning: hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms
(02:23:06 AM) Manning: if not… than we’re doomed
(02:23:18 AM) Manning: as a species
(02:24:13 AM) Manning: i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens
(02:24:58 AM) Manning: the reaction to the video gave me immense hope… CNN’s iReport was overwhelmed… Twitter exploded…
(02:25:18 AM) Manning: people who saw, knew there was something wrong
(02:26:10 AM) Manning: Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here
(02:26:36 AM) Manning: [also reason as to why there's probably no investigation]
(02:28:10 AM) Manning: i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public
(02:28:10 AM) Lamo : I’m not here right now
(02:28:50 AM) Manning: if i knew then, what i knew now… kind of thing…
(02:29:31 AM) Manning: or maybe im just young, naive, and stupid…
(02:30:09 AM) Lamo: which do you think it is?
(02:30:29 AM) Manning: im hoping for the former
(02:30:53 AM) Manning: it cant be the latter
(02:31:06 AM) Manning: because if it is… were fucking screwed
(02:31:12 AM) Manning: (as a society)
(02:31:49 AM) Manning: and i dont want to believe that we’re screwed
(02:32:53 AM) Manning: food time… ttys
______________________________
(02:26:01 PM) Manning: i dont believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… i only a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
(02:26:18 PM) Manning: s/only/only see/
(02:26:47 PM) Lamo: the tm meant i was being facetious
(02:26:59 PM) Manning: gotchya
(02:27:47 PM) Manning: i mean, we’re better in some respects… we’re much more subtle… use a lot more words and legal techniques to legitimize everything
(02:28:00 PM) Manning: its better than disappearing in the middle of the night
(02:28:19 PM) Manning: but just because something is more subtle, doesn’t make it right
(02:29:04 PM) Manning: i guess im too idealistic
(02:31:02 PM) Manning: i think the thing that got me the most… that made me rethink the world more than anything
(02:35:46 PM) Manning: was watching 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police… for printing “anti-Iraqi literature”… the iraqi federal police wouldn’t cooperate with US forces, so i was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the “bad guys” were, and how significant this was for the FPs… it turned out, they had printed a scholarly critique against PM Maliki… i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled “Where did the money go?” and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…
(02:35:46 PM) Lamo : I’m not here right now
(02:36:27 PM) Manning: everything started slipping after that… i saw things differently
(02:37:37 PM) Manning: i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…
(02:22:47 PM) Manning: i mean what if i were someone more maliciousJust so, you know, people don't need to speculate on his motivations, since I don't see any reason to doubt what he said at all.
(02:23:25 PM) Manning: i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?
(02:23:36 PM) Lamo: why didn’t you?
(02:23:58 PM) Manning: because it’s public data
(02:24:15 PM) Lamo: i mean, the cables
(02:24:46 PM) Manning: it belongs in the public domain
(02:25:15 PM) Manning: information should be free
(02:25:39 PM) Manning: it belongs in the public domain
(02:26:18 PM) Manning: because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge
(02:26:55 PM) Manning: if its out in the open… it should be a public good
(02:27:04 PM) Manning: *do the
(02:27:23 PM) Manning: rather than some slimy intel collector
(02:29:18 PM) Manning: im crazy like that
Lawyers are to seek a judicial review of the legality of training assistance provided to the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), arguing that it places the UK in breach of its obligations under international law ... The legal challenge is being mounted by Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, which represents the family of Baha Mousa, the Iraqi hotel receptionist tortured to death by British troops in 2003.WikiLeaks Founder Signs Book Deal
“I don’t want to write this book, but I have to,” Mr. Assange told the newspaper, explaining that his legal costs in fighting extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning about allegations of sexual misconduct, have reached more than $300,000. “I need to defend myself and to keep WikiLeaks afloat,” he said.I was wondering 'when is he going to have time to write that?', but then the next extradition hearing is not till February 6th, so I guess he's writing it already. Its interesting that Mastercard, Visa, Paypal and BoA won't deal with him, but Random House and Canongate are quite happy to. I suppose that says something about different values in the banking and publishing industries.
... and what emerges from Mr Sterling's noodling is mainly how very sorry the kind-hearted Mr Sterling feels for everyone ... Mr Sterling feels sorry for the government lawyers tasked with transorming Bradley Manning's alleged leak into an act of "espionage" ... Mr Sterling feels sorry for the "people in power" Julian Assange has made to "look stupid", and he feels even sorrier "for the rest of us".jeffburdges also posted some good bits from the article, above.
Wikileaks is, in effect, a huge tax on internal coordination.Which I would change to:
[The easily-copyable Wikileaks formula] is, in effect, a [potentially] huge tax on internal coordination.But a tax on something isn't enough to predict the 'death' of something.
U.S. arms sales actually undermine many U.S. foreign policy goals by providing physical and political support to the Turkish military at the expense of democratically elected leaders and civil society. The Turkish military’s 15-year war against the rebel Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in southeast Turkey has involved severe violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force. The war has served as an excuse to repress political leaders, journalists, and human rights activists seeking greater rights for Kurds and a peaceful end to the war. Additionally, in the name of protecting a strictly secular society, the Turkish military uses its inordinate power to suppress religious expression and mild political Islamic activism. (source2) or a Muslim who wants to vote in Egypt for someone besides Mubarak:
In theory, Egypt has an elected president. But over the past half-century, the country has had only three rulers. There were differences in their style and vision, but all have presided over an authoritarian and repressive political system. For the past 29 years, Egyptian society has existed under a draconian "state of emergency," a tool that has allowed the president to suspend basic constitutional protections and that has been used to detain, torture and sometimes kill those who dare to dissent. (source, Egypt has received over 40 billion dollars in military aid right through the worst of it.)3) or a Palestinian, or an Iraqi, or an Afghani: hopefully these need no explanation.
Almost immediately after announcing executive branch sanctions on China in June, Bush began to quietly carve out exceptions or to take conciliatory steps toward China in areas not covered by sanctions. The generous waiver provisions included in the sanctions legislation passed by Congress allowed Bush to continue this pattern. In the end, therefore, the practical effect of congressional action was minimal. Within a year after the Tiananmen Square crackdown, Bush had succeeded in removing or greatly weakening most of the sanctions earlier imposed either through his own executive orders or through congressional mandate.The State Department does report the reality, and usually will recommend a solution aimed at stability instead of reform, while noting human rights abuses and their potential for disaster. But even when the human rights abuses are undeniably evil, the USG and the corporations that run it will undermine dissident rights in the interest of profit every fucking time.
The first such steps were announced on July 7, 1989, when Bush waived provisions of his recent executive order that would have forbidden the sale of four Boeing 757-200 commercial jets to China. The aircraft contained navigation systems that appeared on the munitions control list that Bush used as a basis for his ban on military sales to China. On the same day, the administration decided to allow Honeywell to maintain navigation equipment contained in planes already sold to China. Representative Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), a leading advocate of sanctions, responded to these actions with the charge that "there are powerful forces in this country that are ready to do business with China irrespective of what Chinese human rights are. These people have many spokesmen within the administration."
Although the president's announced sanctions included a ban on high level diplomatic contacts with the Chinese government, Bush secretly dispatched National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Deputy Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleberger to China in July 1989. Secretary of State James Baker met with Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen in New York during September when the latter visited the United Nations. In December 1989, Scowcroft and Eagleberger were sent again to China on an official visit that, in this case, was publicly revealed by the White House (the Scowcroft/Eagleberger trips are discussed in greater detail in the next section). In November 1990, Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen was invited to the Washington, D.C. to meet with Baker as a reward to the Chinese government for its support of the U.S.-led coalition in the Persian Gulf War. High level contacts with the Chinese government began again on a regular basis from late 1990 onward, with top U.S. officials visiting China on three occasions during the period from December 1990 through June 1991.
In August 1989, the administration permitted Hughes Aircraft to exchange data with China regarding the launch of U.S.-made satellites. The next month, U.S. officials resumed lower level talks regarding China's interest in joining GATT.
In December 1989, the Bush Administration announced the sale of one million tons of subsidized wheat to China. Later in the month, Bush issued a waiver allowing the $300 million sale of three satellites to China and lifted the congressional ban on loans by the U.S. Export-Import Bank to finance trade with China. In both cases, Bush invoked the "national interest" waiver clause in justifying his actions.
News reports revealed that the Export-Import Bank had continued to study loan projects related to China during the June to December period, while the ban on lending was in effect, and that Bank officials had made offers on $108 million in lending. Projects totaling $30 million were in the final stages of approval when the ban was lifted. The Export-Import Bank issued two new loans, the first since the crackdown, in February 1990.
The World Bank's suspension of new lending to China also amounted to less than met the eye. Over the decade before the Tiananmen Square crackdown, the World Bank had approved $85 billion in lending to China. About one half of these old loans had yet to be disbursed at the time of the massacre. During the period that the ban on new lending was in effect, dispersal of these old loans continued and planning for future lending continued.
On January 10, 1990, Bush lifted U.S. objections to renewed lending to China by the World Bank, stating that the U.S. would consider its vote regarding new loans on a case-by-case basis. The first loan proposal receiving the favorable backing of the U.S. came in February 1990, regarding a $30 million earthquake relief project. Later, in December 1990, the World Bank issued its first non-humanitarian loan to China since the crackdown without U.S. objection. In July 1990, Bush stated that he would not oppose Japan's decision to renew Japanese foreign aid to China, although he urged the Japanese to reduce the scale of planned assistance.
In the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Bush Administration's policies toward China took the form of public criticism and private conciliation. The public face of Bush's policy was designed to satisfy public and congressional demands for stern measures against China. Ideologically isolated and facing strong bipartisan support for a tough response to the crackdown, Bush accepted the inevitable by publicly preempting congressional action with his own announced sanctions and largely held his fire as tougher sanctions legislation worked through the Congress. (source from an academic paper)
Over the last six months, the Obama administration has issued statements on Egypt with a markedly stronger and more critical tone, particularly in regards to the Emergency Law extension and the murder of Khaled Said. These statements, along with the recent White House meeting, are signs of a slow, gradual shift towards a tougher US policy on Egypt.4) Hell, ask a Chinese dissident. After they started turning them into pancakes in Tiananmen Square, and American investment skyrocketed
I think this conversation would go a lot better if you stop telling me what I think. You earlier told me I didn't care that children were being killed.What? You said it quite clearly:
Its called a straw man. I know there is a case for Assange to be made. I don't think you tellling me what I think about things via your magic mind-reading machine is really helping you.
I'm supposed to care what the German voters think? No. I live here, I vote here.It doesn't matter to you what voters in other countries think, because you don't care about democracy. It's not my fault you don't understand your own statements.
Glad you're all aboard for democracy in Zimbabwe. Because that's what Mugabe is fighting, small-d democrats, which we are not supposed to support if it means pointing out that Assange's actions might have negative consequences for good people. But, by all means, a few eggs must be broken. Too bad for their lives, as long as we can cheer Assange.Just to clarify: are you opposed the war in Afghanistan, drone strikes in Pakistan, etc?
The last Palestinian parliamentary electionsAfter Hamas won the election, the United States immediately cut funding and has been working with the Israeli government to undermine the elected Palestinian government. Not quite the example you're looking for.
Spanish transision to democracy under Juan CarlosHappened to align with American interests.
Failing to intervene in the Iranian revolution if 1979 a revolution many blame on the Carter admins refusal to take a hard line.It was not militarily or politically possible for the US sponsored dictator to hold on to power in 1979 after he was installed by our government in 1953. We helped him repress democratic movements for 29 years, and just like in Egypt, we trained his SAVAK forces how to torture and kill to maintain power.
South Africa and ApartheidYou don't get credit for being the last western nation to materially oppose apartheid, instead of just paying it lip service while you continue to trade with them. Reagan even vetoed the embargo against apartheid in 85 or 86, and thankfully it was overridden with a two thirds vote. It's like supporting the abolition of slavery in 1866 and patting yourself on the back for your victory. As Desmond Tutu said after Reagan's pathetic address:
Forcing Marcos to hold elections in the Philipines and forcing him to accept that he lost the election.
One of the most critical moments of the CIA station in Manila was the immediate post-Marcos years when they tried to dissociate US links with the Marcoses and politically influence the contours of the post-Marcos era. Financial, technical and political support for the pro-US "agents of influence" assured the dominance of pro-US local elites and institutions as a counterweight to the progressive anti-imperialist, anti-Marcos forces that threatened to define and restructure the architecture of the post-Marcos neo-colonial regime.
USAID was directed to grant the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) with a generous financing so it could formulate a position paper on an economic program anchored on "the partnership between labor and capital." USAID even temporarily set up an agrarian reform office, working closely at TUCP offices. Political analysts of the CIA and USAID wanted to design an agrarian reform program that would not disrupt the agro-export sector and one which could be synchronized with the counterinsurgency program and defuse peasant unrest. The CIA and US military advisers also wanted a deeper role in the design and command of counterinsurgency. These funds were supplemented by the so-called "democracy promotion" initiatives of the NED which poured in heavy funding for TUCP, Namfrel, the Women's Movement for the Nurturing of Democracy (KABATID) and the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI). The NED gave a total of $9 million from 1984-1990 to these institutions and organizations.
Following the ouster of Marcos, the US set about to transform the "new" Armed Forces of the Philippines into an effective counterinsurgency force that would integrate military, political, economic and social initiatives, including broad "civic action" campaigns, psychological operations, military aid and training. It was a massive comeback of the low-intensity conflict years of the Magsaysay-Lansdale era! Between 1987-1990, Washington reportedly authorized stepped-up clandestine CIA operations against the Left in the Philippines, including a $10 million allocation to the AFP for enhanced intelligence-gathering operations. There was also an increase in the number of CIA personnel, from 115 to 127, mostly attached as "diplomats" to the US embassy in Manila. (Oltman and Bernstein, 1992)
In general, US military and economic aid are used quite effectively and they remain key elements of US policy in the Philippines. The CIA station handles political aid and political matters. This means, according to the CIA's Intelligence Memorandum on the 1965 Philippine presidential elections for instance, assuring that the victorious national candidates who are acceptable to the US should be "western-oriented and pledge to continue close and equitable relations with the US and the West on matters of mutual interest." (Bonner, 1987) The CIA station also conducts widespread covert operations, among them: stage-managed national elections to assure preferred US outcome; payoffs to government officials under the guise of grants; financing for favored business and civic groups and pro-US propaganda campaigns among the population; the supply of intelligence information on activists and dissidents to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and so on. (Robinson, 1996)
-Roland G. Simbulan, Convenor/Coordinator, Manila Studies Program
University of the Philippines
Democacy in South KoreaSide effect of our war on communism. See also: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Chile. Another lucky participant in our geopolitical games.
and Taiwan."The president spoke so clearly and forcefully in support of our one-China policy and based on the three communiques and our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act that I don't know that he had to repeat the message." -Colin Powell
Refusal to endorse the coup against Hugo Chavez, allowing him to come back into power.You mean, refusal to connect the CIA with the coup attempt to save face after realizing the coup failed.
However, it was not made clear why the talks broached the subject of a coup, four months before the event. Mr Fleischer said the subject had been brought up at meetings with Venezuelan opposition leaders because US diplomats in Caracas had "for the past several months" been picking up coup rumours. "In the conversations they had they explicitly told opposition leaders the United States would not support a coup," he added.The day after the coup, the State Department made this statement:
However, a defence department official quoted by the New York Times yesterday said: "We were not discouraging people."
"We were sending informal, subtle signals that we don't like this guy. We didn't say, 'No, don't you dare' and we weren't advocates saying, 'Here's some arms; we'll help you overthrow this guy.'" (source)
We wish to express our solidarity with the Venezuelan people and look forward to working with all democratic forces in Venezuela to ensure the full exercise of democratic rights. . .
Yesterday's events in Venezuela resulted in a transitional government until new elections can be held. Though details are still unclear, undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez administration provoked yesterday's crisis in Venezuela. . . The results of these provocations are: Chavez resigned the presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the Vice President and the Cabinet. A transition civilian government has promised early elections.
We have every expectation that this situation will be resolved peacefully and democratically by the Venezuelan people.
Shall I go on. Not every intervention needs US troops either. Many times the US provides humanitarian assistance and not every problem is resolved by launching a trade war or cutting off aid.My friend, you didn't go anywhere in the first place. You should start over, and start reading.
After congratulating Chen Shui-bian on his re-election in March 2004, the Administration, in testimony on April 21, 2004, further clarified U.S. policy toward Taiwan and warned of “limitations” in U.S. support for constitutional changes in Taiwan. At that hearing on the TRA, Representative James Leach, Chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, stated that Taiwan has the unique situation in which it can have de facto selfdetermination only if it does not attempt to be recognized with de jure sovereignty. He urged Taiwan’s people to recognize that they have greater security in “political ambiguity.” He called for continuity, saying that “together with our historic ‘one China’ policy,” the TRA has contributed to ensuring peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. ( source )You seem keen to brush of any actual evidence with rumor and propaganda.
In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience. He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.Sorry Proff. I can't support that.
« Older The Hideous Financial Monster, by Te Waka Huia.... | If you own a car built before ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by MikeWarot at 5:22 PM on December 22, 2010 [2 favorites]