Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:51 pm

Wikileaks and the Vatican.

*

WikiLeaks: Pope's offer to Anglicans risked 'violence against Catholics'
British ambassador warned that pontiff's invitation to disaffected Anglicans to convert left relations with Vatican at 150-year low

Heather Brooke, Andrew Brown and Robert Booth
The Guardian, Saturday 11 December 2010

WikiLeaks cables describe a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in November 2009 as 'at times awkward'. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
The British ambassador to the Vatican warned that Pope Benedict XVI's invitation to Anglican opponents of female priests to convert en masse to Catholicism was so inflammatory that it might lead to discrimination and even violence against Catholics in Britain, according to a secret US diplomatic cable.

Talking to an American diplomat after the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, met the pope in November 2009, Francis Campbell said the surprise Vatican move had placed Williams "in an impossible situation" and "Anglican-Vatican relations were facing their worst crisis in 150 years as a result of the pope's decision"...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... -catholics

*

WikiLeaks cables: Vatican refused to engage with child sex abuse inquiry
Leaked cable lays bare how Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying to Murphy commission

Heather Brooke
The Guardian, Saturday 11 December 2010

A WikiLeaks cable details the behind-the-scenes diplomacy before Cardinal Seán Brady met Pope Benedict XVI in Rome, after which the pope said he shared the 'outrage, betrayal and shame' of Irish Catholics. Photograph: Tony Gentile/Reuters
The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating the clerical abuse of children and was angered when they were summoned from Rome, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks reveal.

Requests for information from the 2009 Murphy commission into sexual and physical abuse by clergy "offended many in the Vatican" who felt that the Irish government had "failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations", a cable says.

Despite the lack of co-operation from the Vatican, the commission was able to substantiate many of the claims and concluded that some bishops had tried to cover up abuse, putting the interests of the Catholic church ahead of those of the victims. Its report identified 320 people who complained of child sexual abuse between 1975 and 2004 in the Dublin archdiocese.

A cable entitled "Sex abuse scandal strains Irish-Vatican relations, shakes up Irish church, and poses challenges for the Holy See" claimed that Vatican officials also believed Irish opposition politicians were "making political hay" from the situation by publicly urging the government to demand a reply from the Vatican.

Ultimately, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (equivalent to a prime minister), wrote to the Irish embassy, ordering that any requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... intcmp=239

*

WikiLeaks cables: Pope wanted Muslim Turkey kept out of EU
Vatican diplomats also lobbied against Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and wanted 'Christian roots' enshrined in EU constitution

Heather Brooke and Andrew Brown
guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 December 2010 21.30 GMT

A WikiLeaks cable reports that Pope Benedict XVI, seen here being received by Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara in 2006, 'might prefer to see Turkey develop a special relationship short of EU membership'. Photograph: Dylan Martinez/AFP/Getty Images
The pope is responsible for the Vatican's growing hostility towards Turkey joining the EU, previously secret cables sent from the US embassy to the Holy See in Rome claim.

In 2004 Cardinal Ratzinger, the future pope, spoke out against letting a Muslim state join, although at the time the Vatican was formally neutral on the question.

The Vatican's acting foreign minister, Monsignor Pietro Parolin, responded by telling US diplomats that Ratzinger's comments were his own rather than the official Vatican position.

The cable released by WikiLeaks shows that Ratzinger was the leading voice behind the Holy See's unsuccessful drive to secure a reference to Europe's "Christian roots" in the EU constitution. The US diplomat noted that Ratzinger "clearly understands that allowing a Muslim country into the EU would further weaken his case for Europe's Christian foundations".

But by 2006 Parolin was working for Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and his tone had distinctly chilled. "Neither the pope nor the Vatican have endorsed Turkey's EU membership per se," he told the American charge d'affaires, "rather, the Holy See has been consistently open to accession, emphasising only that Turkey needs to fulfil the EU's Copenhagen criteria to take its place in Europe."

But he did not expect the demands on religious freedom to be fulfilled: "One great fear is that Turkey could enter the EU without having made the necessary advances in religious freedom. [Parolin] insisted that EU members – and the US – continue to press the [Turkish government] on these issues … He said that short of 'open persecution', it couldn't get much worse for the Christian community in Turkey."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... -eu-muslim

*

more vatican cables here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-emba ... nts/203608

Cable: Future pope objects to EU membership for Muslim Turkey
Cable: Vatican softens towards Turkish EU bid
Cable: Vatican 'helped secure release' of British sailors captured by Iran
Cable: Vatican backs US call for 'human cloning ban'
Cable: Vatican promises to use its influence to back Copenhagen climate deal
Cable: Vatican hoped that Poland would 'hold the family line' in the EU
Cable: Vatican's 'active and influential' role at UN general assembly
Cable: Diplomat reveals Vatican's 'unhelpful' role in Middle East peace process

Related:
WikiLeaks cables: Pope wanted Muslim Turkey kept out of EU
10 Dec 2010
US embassy cables: Vatican promises to use its influence to back Copenhagen climate deal
10 Dec 2010
US embassy cables: Vatican backs US call for 'human cloning ban'
10 Dec 2010
US embassy cables: Future pope objects to EU membership for Muslim Turkey


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:00 pm

WikiLeaks cables: Pfizer 'used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout'
Cables say drug giant hired investigators to find evidence of corruption on Nigerian attorney general to persuade him to drop legal action

Sarah Boseley, health editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 December 2010 21.33 GMT

Kano, in northern Nigeria, saw a meningitis epidemic of unprecedented scale in 1996. Photograph: Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP/Getty Images
The world's biggest pharmaceutical company hired investigators to unearth evidence of corruption against the Nigerian attorney general in order to persuade him to drop legal action over a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis, according to a leaked US embassy cable.

Pfizer was sued by the Nigerian state and federal authorities, who claimed that children were harmed by a new antibiotic, Trovan, during the trial, which took place in the middle of a meningitis epidemic of unprecedented scale in Kano in the north of Nigeria in 1996.

Last year, the company came to a tentative settlement with the Kano state government which was to cost it $75m.

But the cable suggests that the US drug giant did not want to pay out to settle the two cases – one civil and one criminal – brought by the Nigerian federal government.

The cable reports a meeting between Pfizer's country manager, Enrico Liggeri, and US officials at the Abuja embassy on 9 April 2009. It states: "According to Liggeri, Pfizer had hired investigators to uncover corruption links to federal attorney general Michael Aondoakaa to expose him and put pressure on him to drop the federal cases. He said Pfizer's investigators were passing this information to local media."

The cable, classified confidential by economic counsellor Robert Tansey, continues: "A series of damaging articles detailing Aondoakaa's 'alleged' corruption ties were published in February and March. Liggeri contended that Pfizer had much more damaging information on Aondoakaa and that Aondoakaa's cronies were pressuring him to drop the suit for fear of further negative articles."

The release of the Pfizer cable came as:

• The American ambassador to London denounced the leak of classified US embassy cables from around the world. In tomorrow'sGuardian Louis Susman writes: "This is not whistleblowing. There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people. There is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends."

• It emerged that Julian Assange had been transferred to the segregation unit in Wandsworth prison and had distanced WikiLeaks from cyber attacks on MasterCard, Visa, PayPal and other organisations.

• Other newly released cables revealed that China is losing patience with the failure of the Burmese regime to reform, and disclosed US fears that Europe will cave in to Serbian pressure to partition Kosovo.

While many thousands fell ill during the Kano epidemic, Pfizer's doctors treated 200 children, half with Trovan and half with the best meningitis drug used in the US at the time, ceftriaxone. Five children died on Trovan and six on ceftriaxone, which for the company was a good result. But later it was claimed Pfizer did not have proper consent from parents to use an experimental drug on their children and there were questions over the documentation of the trial. Trovan was licensed for adults in Europe, but later withdrawn because of fears of liver toxicity.

The cable claims that Liggeri said Pfizer, which maintains the trial was well-conducted and any deaths were the direct result of the meningitis itself, was not happy about settling the Kano state cases, "but had come to the conclusion that the $75m figure was reasonable because the suits had been ongoing for many years costing Pfizer more than $15m a year in legal and investigative fees".

In an earlier meeting on 2 April between two Pfizer lawyers, Joe Petrosinelli and Atiba Adams, Liggeri, the US ambassador and the economic section, it had been suggested that Pfizer owed the favourable outcome of the federal cases to former Nigerian head of state Yakubu Gowon.

He had interceded on Pfizer's behalf with the Kano state governor, Mallam Ibrahim Shekarau – who directed that the state's settlement demand should be reduced from $150m to $75m – and with the Nigerian president. "Adams reported that Gowon met with President Yar'Adua and convinced him to drop the two federal high court cases against Pfizer," the cable says.

But five days later Liggeri, without the lawyers present, enlarged on the covert operation against Aondoakaa.

The cable says Liggeri went on to suggest that the lawsuits against Pfizer "were wholly political in nature".

He alleged that Médecins sans Frontières, which was in the same hospital in Kano, "administered Trovan to other children during the 1996 meningitis epidemic and the Nigerian government has taken no action".

MSF – which was the first to raise concerns about the trial – vehemently denies this. Jean-Hervé Bradol, former president of MSF France, said: "We have never worked with this family of antibiotic. We don't use it for meningitis. That is the reason why we were shocked to see this trial in the hospital."

There is no suggestion that the attorney general was swayed by the pressure. However, the dropping of the federal cases provoked suspicion in Nigeria. Last month, the Nigerian newspaper Next ran a story headlined, "Aondoakaa's secret deal with Pfizer".

The terms of the agreement that led to the withdrawal of the $6bn federal suit in October 2009 against Pfizer "remain unknown because of the nature of [the] deal brokered by … Mike Aondoakaa", it said. Pfizer and the Nigerian authorities had signed a confidentiality agreement. "The withdrawal of the case, as well as the terms of settlement, is a highly guarded secret by the parties involved in the negotiation," the article said.

Aondoakaa expressed astonishment at the claims in the US cable when approached by the Guardian. "I'm very surprised to see I became a subject, which is very shocking to me," he said. "I was not aware of Pfizer looking into my past. For them to have done that is a very serious thing. I became a target of a multinational: you are supposed to have sympathy with me … If it is true, maybe I will take legal action."

In a statement to the Guardian, Pfizer said: "The Trovan cases brought by both the federal government of Nigeria and Kano state were resolved in 2009 by mutual agreement. Pfizer negotiated the settlement with the federal government of Nigeria in good faith and its conduct in reaching that agreement was proper. Although Pfizer has not seen any documents from the US embassy in Nigeria regarding the federal government cases, the statements purportedly contained in such documents are completely false.

"As previously disclosed in Pfizer's 10-Q filing in November 2009, per the agreement with the federal government, Nigeria dismissed its civil and criminal actions against the company. Pfizer denied any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the 1996 study. The company agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses incurred by the federal government associated with the Trovan litigation. Pursuant to the settlement, payment was made to the federal government's counsel of record in the case, and there was no payment made to the federal government of Nigeria itself. As is common practice, the agreement was covered by a standard confidentiality clause agreed to by both parties."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... er-nigeria

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:05 pm

THANKS!^^^^^

US Sought Removal of UN Burma Envoy, Leaked Documents ShowGary Thomas | Washington 10 December 2010

Newly disclosed State Department documents show the U.S. sought to have the U.N. Special Envoy on Burma removed from his job. A new batch of classified cables released by the activist website WikiLeaks also documents Chinese frustration with Burma's generals and rumblings about possible North Korean nuclear cooperation with Burma.

In a 2008 cable, then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice asked the U.S. Mission to the United Nations to request the removal of Ibrahim Gambari as the Secretary-General's Special Representative to Burma.

In a set of talking points to be conveyed to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon or his deputy, the cable asked for Gambari's "graceful" termination from office.

It cited what it called Gambari's complete lack of progress on critical issues in Burma, namely, dialogue between the government and the opposition, particularly Aung San Suu Kyi, and release of political prisoners. It says some of the failure to achieve progress was attributable to regime intransigence, but that Gambari did not press the generals as forcefully as he might have, and that he was unrealistically upbeat about prospects for change in Burma.

Gambari was reassigned one year ago as head of the U.N.-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

The cable also cites a loss of confidence in Gambari by Burma's democracy movement. Opposition leaders had in fact often criticized Gambari as ineffective in advancing the cause of human rights.

Contacted in Darfur by VOA, Gambari refused to directly comment on the cable. However, he points out that he remained in his post for another year and a half after Secretary Rice's request before moving on to a more high-profile job. He also claims partial credit for Aung San Suu Kyi's release from house arrest last month, saying it was directly due to groundwork he had laid in his meetings in Burma, also known as Myanmar.

"It is very clear that that was in part the outcome of a lot of work that was done before then [the release], including, as you know, eight meetings between me and her on eight different occasions, and 10 meetings with the senior leadership of Myanmar," said Gambari.

The cable was one of the latest in a series of diplomatic communications obtained and released by WikiLeaks.

Another leaked cable, dated January 18, 2008, says China has also been losing patience with Burma's rulers. It quotes the Chinese ambassador to Burma as saying the generals' intransigence is making a bad situation worse. The ambassador told the U.S. charge' d'affaires that fear of losing power and economic interests may be what is keeping the generals away from the negotiating table.

A July 2008 cable offers a sobering view of both the government and the opposition. It says the generals keep their hold on power through a vast system of economic patronage that it likens to the Mafia. The cable says that rumors of splits at the top of the military government come from what it calls uninformed analysis and wishful thinking by Burmese exiles and outside observers. The cable says while there are some disagreements, the generals stick together out of self-interest.

But there are also splits in the Burmese democracy movement. The cable says that while Aung San Suu Kyi remains immensely popular, her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), does not share the same status. It says a younger generation is frustrated with a party that is strictly hierarchal and controlled by elderly activists who fail to listen to the ideas of their youthful comrades.

Aung San Suu Kyi was freed from a seven-year-long house detention last month after elections. Her party boycotted the elections, which critics say were engineered to ensure a majority for the generals. However, that decision was criticized by some of the younger party members, and some disaffected young activists split from the NLD and did participate.

The WikiLeaks documents also raise the issue of possible North Korean nuclear cooperation and missile program assistance to Burma. However, nothing in the cables offers any hard confirmation of those reports
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:50 am

WikiLeaks: will the civil war return to Lebanon?

The WikiLeaks revelations have already caused immense embarrassment to William Hague but his pains count as the most trivial of setbacks compared to the epic calamity inflicted on pro-Western officials in Lebanon.

Elias Murr (L), the defence minister has been caught red-handed conspiring with the United States of America to facilitate an Israeli invasion in 2008 Photo: APBy Peter Oborne, Beirut 9:00PM GMT 10 Dec 2010
The Foreign Secretary had been accused of pandering to the US ahead of last May’s general election since his private conversations with state department officials became public.

The accounts of conversations with members of Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri’s government have revealed collusion with the state’s main enemy.

Elias Murr, the defence minister has been caught red-handed conspiring with the United States of America to facilitate an Israeli invasion in 2008.

Related Articles

Hezbollah lose out in Lebanese elections10 Dec 2010
WikiLeaks: Julian Assange to hand himself in to police after arrest warrant issued10 Dec 2010
The Wikileaks cables reveal how, over a two and a half hour lunch with American diplomats, Mr Murr spelt out areas that Israeli jets should hit.

He also revealed he had ordered the Lebanese army 'not to get involved in any fighting and to fulfil a civil defence role”.

The minister’s only concern was that the invading force refrain from attacking Christian areas. Attacks on Shia Muslims was 'Hizbollah’s problem’ and Mr Murr - a Christian in a Sunni-led government - hoped that the offensive would allow the army to displace the radical Iranian-backed group that is Lebanon’s strongest force.

His plan was for the Lebanese army to remain in its bases – then take over once Hizbollah’s militia forces had been defeated.

The Americans concluded that Murr 'seems intent on ensuring the Army stays out of the way so what Hizbollah bears the full weight of an Israeli offensive.’

Almost as damaging, Murr’s testimony directly implicates the Lebanese president Michel Sleiman. In March 2008, at the time of the conversation, the Lebanese president was army chief of staff. And Murr told his American friends that he had already instructed Sleiman that the Lebanese army should not get involved 'when Israel comes.’

It has been commonly claimed that the Julian Assange’s Wikileaks revelations have contained no dazzling revelations. But these revelations are bound to inflict long term damage on the already troubled government of Prime Minister Hariri.

It is true that local reaction in Beirut has been measured, even from Hizbollah, and that Elias Murr himself has reacted with amazing insouciance.In a statement he called for Lebanese who have labelled him a traitor to be put on trial. He asked: 'Who will try those who are accusing other Lebanese of treason only because they hold a different opinion?’

But this muted reaction is only because the Lebanon is already facing what threatens to become the country’s greatest crisis since the end of the civil war twenty years ago.

A United Nations investigation into the 2005 assasination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri (father of the current premier) is set to issue draft indictments that are widely expected that the tribunal to identify Hizbollah as the perpetrators of the crime.

Sources say the indictment will go to the judge within days.

When the charges are published many believe Lebanon will face a dangerous conflagration.

Hizbollah was yesterday mounting a last ditch attempt to discredit the tribunal, warning that it will cause 'chaos.’

Ammar Mousawi, Hizbollah’s director of international relations, issued a steely warning to me at its headquarters in southern Beirut. He said: “We view the tribunal as an aggression against us. We will deal with this aggression with means and methods that are required.”

A finding against Hizbollah would license Sunnis to mount revenge attacks on Shias and could trigger all out fighting. The tribunal has been viewed as flawed by Hizbollah from the start. He said: 'I want to underline a point. Our position against the indictment is not a position against justice or truth. At the dialogue table all parties including us were concerned with punishing the perpetrators. We still adopt the same position.

“But in any offence or criminal act the investigators start by looking at the list of those who have benefitted. But there was no motive for Hizbollah. We and the Syrians were the people who were most disadvantaged by the killing of Hariri.”

The Israelis, suggested Mousawi, were more likely the guilty party.

The danger of a return to violence has stimulated a desperate last minute campaign by Saudi Arabia and Syria to stop the tribunal in its tracks.

This would involve Prime Minister Saad Hariri withdrawing his support for the tribunal. As the son of the murdered man, Harriri’s acquiesence carry’s huge weight in the Arab world.

Deals like these may sound unsavoury- and contrary to natural justice- but in Beirut it may avert diaster.

The government is already in paralysis because of the tribunal - the cabinet has not met for the last three weeks because of the dispute.

Beirut has seen a return to peace and even prosperity after the desperate decades of internal strife. Cafes and restaurants are full amidst an unprecedented construction boom which has seen many of the loveliest parts of the old historic city replaced by towering blocks of flats.

But this week, the question I was most often asked by tremulous waiters, cab-drivers and hotel staff was: 'Are we about to return to civil war?’
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:06 am

Image
Vatican refused to help Irish sex abuse probe: cable
Published on 11 December 2010 - 2:00pm

The Vatican refused to cooperate with an Irish probe into child sex abuse by Catholic priests in Dublin because the requests were not made through official channels, a leaked US cable showed Saturday.

Requests for information by the 2009 Murphy commission "offended many in the Vatican... because they saw them as an affront to Vatican sovereignty", according to a cable from the US embassy in Rome, leaked by WikiLeaks.

The Murphy commission's findings, published in November 2009, caused shock across Ireland and the worldwide Catholic community by detailing how Church authorities covered up for paedophile priests in Dublin for three decades.

Dated February 26 this year, the US cable -- published by The Guardian newspaper -- records the observations of US diplomat in Rome Julieta Noyes.

It says the commission, which was led by judge Yvonne Murphy, wrote directly to Vatican officials to ask for information on its investigations, sidestepping official diplomatic channels.

"While Vatican contacts immediately expressed deep sympathy for the victims and insisted that the first priority was preventing a recurrence, they also were angered by how the situation played out politically," the cable said.

"The Murphy Commission's requests offended many in the Vatican, the Holy See's Assessor Peter Wells... told DCM (Noyes), because they saw them as an affront to Vatican sovereignty.

"Vatican officials were also angered that the government of Ireland did not step in to direct the Murphy Commission to follow standard procedures in communications with Vatican City.

"Adding insult to injury, Vatican officials also believed some Irish opposition politicians were making political hay with the situation by calling publicly on the government to demand that the Vatican reply."

Ultimately, the Vatican secretary of state -- the equivalent of a prime minister -- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, wrote to the Irish embassy and ordered that any further requests go through diplomatic channels.

Ireland's ambassador to the Vatican, Noel Fahey, told Noyes the situation "was the most difficult crisis he had ever managed", according to the cable.

In the end Dublin did not press the Vatican to reply to the Murphy panel's requests, Fahey's deputy Helena Keleher told Noyes.

Keleher also said foreign ambassadors were not required or expected to appear before such bodies.

"Nevertheless, Keleher thought the (Vatican) Nuncio in Ireland made things worse by simply ignoring the requests," the cable said, noting that the Vatican's response only fuelled anger in Ireland over the sex abuse scandal.

Pope Benedict XVI met with Ireland's two most senior Catholic churchmen after the publication of the Murphy report, and said he shared "the outrage, betrayal and shame" felt by Irish Catholics over its findings.


Ireland granted immunity to sex abuse church officials under pressure from Vatican, says WikiLeaks
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby vanlose kid » Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:16 pm

someone wanted litvinenko dead, and no it wasn't ivan.

*

WikiLeaks cables: Russia 'was tracking killers of Alexander Litvinenko but UK warned it off'
Claim that British intelligence was incompetent will deepen diplomatic row sparked by move to deport MP's Russian researcher

Jamie Doward and Emily Dyer
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 11 December 2010 21.30 GMT

Russia was tracking the assassins of dissident spy Alexander Litvinenko before he was poisoned but was warned off by Britain, which said the situation was "under control", according to claims made in a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The secret memo, recording a 2006 meeting between an ex-CIA bureau chief and a former KGB officer, is set to reignite the diplomatic row surrounding Litvinenko's unsolved murder that year, which many espionage experts have linked directly to the Kremlin.

The latest WikiLeaks release comes after relations between Moscow and London soured as a result of Britain's decision to expel a Russian parliamentary researcher suspected of being a spy.

The memo, written by staff at the US embassy in Paris, records "an amicable 7 December dinner meeting with ambassador-at-large Henry Crumpton [and] Russian special presidential representative Anatoliy Safonov", two weeks after Litvinenko's death from polonium poisoning had triggered an international hunt for his killers.

During the dinner, Crumpton, who ran the CIA's Afghanistan operations before becoming the US ambassador for counter-terrorism, and Safonov, an ex-KGB colonel-general, discussed ways the two countries could work together to tackle terrorism. The memo records that "Safonov opened the meeting by expressing his appreciation for US/Russian co-operative efforts thus far. He cited the recent events in London – specifically the murder of a former Russian spy by exposure to radioactive agents – as evidence of how great the threat remained and how much more there was to do on the co-operative front."

The memo contains an observation from US embassy officials that Safonov's comments suggested Russia "was not involved in the killing, although Safonov did not offer any further explanation".

Later the memo records that Safonov claimed that "Russian authorities in London had known about and followed individuals moving radioactive substances into the city but were told by the British that they were under control before the poisoning took place".

The claim will be rejected in many quarters as a clumsy attempt by Moscow to deflect accusations that its agents were involved in the assassination.

Russia says it had nothing to do with the murder, but espionage experts claim the killing would not have been possible without Kremlin backing. Shortly before he died, Litvinenko said he had met two former KGB agents, Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi, on the day he fell ill. Both men deny wrongdoing, but Britain has made a formal request for Lugovoi's extradition following a recommendation by the director of public prosecutions.

New evidence linking Russia with the death of Litvinenko was recently produced by his widow, Marina, who procured documents allegedly showing the FSB security service seized a container of polonium in the weeks before the poisoning. Moscow disputes the claims.

The allegation that British authorities were monitoring the assassins' progress through London is likely to raise questions about whether Litvinenko was warned his life may have been at risk in the days before he was murdered.

Several people familiar with the affair said they thought Safonov's claims implausible, with one saying he had never heard it aired within London intelligence circles before. Nevertheless Safonov's remarks – in effect questioning the competence [not the collusion or control?] of Britain's security services – will do little to heal the relationship between London and Moscow.

The claims come after Britain announced that Katia Zatuliveter, a 25-year-old Russian working for the Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock, is to be deported amid suspicions she was spying for the Kremlin, a charge she plans to contest.

Alexander Sternik, chargé d'affaires at Russia's embassy in London, hinted that the deportation could trigger tit-for-tat expulsions and denounced the move as a "PR stunt" designed to mask Britain's own problems. "These problems are many over the last couple of months," Sternik said. "You can cite the unflattering leaks from WikiLeaks and [England's] unsuccessful [World Cup] bid."

The Paris embassy memo also shines new light on relations between Washington and Moscow. Henry Crumpton reportedly gained almost mythical status after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He has been identified in the US media as a CIA agent quoted in the 11 September commission report as unsuccessfully pressing the agency to do more in Afghanistan to combat Osama bin Laden.

Safonov was once tipped to take the top job at the federal security service after the then Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, dismissed its incumbent.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... nko-murder

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:59 pm

.
A reasonably substantial revelation for those of us who are interested in Northern Ireland, and the Pat Finucane murder in particular. MI5 have offered to hand over their files on the case, which would seem to suggest (unless they've faked up some completely UK-exonerating documents) that it was another branch of the secret service that did him in - either MI6, Army Intelligence, FRU members, or even Special Branch (or SAS, for that matter).
Hell, it could've been anybody, really. But at least it helps remind everybody (in a national newspaper, no less) that our intelligence services are murderers who collaborate with other murderers in order to commit murders on our own shores.


* Nicholas Watt and Owen Bowcott
* The Guardian, Monday 13 December 2010

Image

WikiLeaks cables reveal US diplomats feared that 'elements of the security-legal establishments' in Britain beyond MI5 were resisting an inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane.

MI5 has said that it is prepared to hand over sensitive files on one of the most high-profile murders during the Northern Ireland Troubles carried out by loyalist gunmen working with members of the British security forces.

The offer in the case of Pat Finucane, the well-known civil rights and defence lawyer murdered in front of his wife and three young children in 1989, is contained in confidential US embassy cables passed to WikiLeaks.

Supporters of Finucane welcomed the revelation of the offer as "highly significant" and believe it could pave the way for a fresh inquiry into the killing that would be acceptable to the family...

Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary, has told Finucane's widow that he will decide early next year whether to hold a hearing that could shine a new light on collusion between gunmen from the Ulster Freedom Fighters and members of the security forces.

A refusal to hold such a hearing, which Paterson has questioned in the past, would prevent an examination of the MI5 files.

Finucane's supporters spoke out after leaked US embassy cables, published by WikiLeaks, showed that:

• Bertie Ahern, the Irish prime minister between 1997 and 2008, told US diplomats that "everyone knows the UK was involved" in the murder.

• US diplomats feared that "elements of the security-legal establishments" in Britain beyond MI5 were fighting hard to resist an inquiry.


• Brian Cowen, the current Irish prime minister, warned that a failure to hold an inquiry could be a "deal breaker".

Finucane's family said MI5's offer was a highly significant development in their 20-year battle to uncover the circumstances surrounding the murder.

The Security Service's offer is revealed in a cable from June 2005, written by the US ambassador to Dublin, James C Kenny, which reported on a meeting between the head of MI5 and Mitchell Reiss, the US special envoy to Northern Ireland. In an account of the meeting between Reiss and Ahern, the ambassador wrote: "Reiss briefed him on his talks in London, including with the head of MI5 [Eliza Manningham-Buller], who committed to turning over all evidence her agency has to the inquiry, but she was adamant that the inquiry will proceed using the new legislation."

Peter Madden, Finucane's partner in the Belfast solicitors' firm Madden and Finucane, said: "This might significantly change things. This is something new and unexpected. It will have to be considered by the Finucane family." Madden said the family would proceed with care because MI5 said any inquiry would be carried out under new legislation, which allows for material to be withheld from the final report. The family have demanded the same terms as the Bloody Sunday inquiry, but the legislation for that dated back to the 1920s and was repealed in 2005....

Ahern told the US he was adamant that members of the British security forces were involved in Finucane's murder. The cable said: "The taoiseach said that the GOI wants the UK to provide evidence acknowledging its involvement in Finucane's murder and it wants to know how high in the UK government collusion went. He said if the UK were to provide the information, it would only grab the headlines for a few hours because 'everyone knows the UK was involved'."

A year earlier, US diplomats raised fears that some forces in British were determined to block an inquiry. A cable by the same ambassador on 26 July 2004 quoted Ahern as saying: "Tony [Blair] knows what he has to do." An explanatory comment inserted by the US ambassador noted: "Presumably, that the PM will have to overrule elements of the security-legal establishments to see that some form of public inquiry is held." The elements resisting an inquiry could be the old Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch and British military intelligence.

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, a former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, concluded in a report in 2003 that members of the security forces had colluded in the murder of Finucane...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/1 ... k-finucane


---
It seems the cable itself has been removed again. Why do they keep doing that?
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby vanlose kid » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:05 am

WikiLeaks cables: UK police 'developed' evidence against McCanns
British ambassador's reported comments to US counterpart offer insight into role of UK police in 2007 investigation

Ben Quinn
guardian.co.uk, Monday 13 December 2010 21.30 GMT

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."

The comments attributed to the ambassador appear to contradict the widespread perception at the time that Portuguese investigators were the driving force behind the treatment of the McCanns as suspects in the case.

The disclosure comes as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returns to court in an attempt to secure bail following his arrest last week at the request of Swedish authorities who want to interview him over allegations of sexual assault. A number of other cables released by the whistleblowers' website shed new light on aspects of the financial crisis. Revelations include:

• RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton said the board of the bank breached their "fiduciary responsibilities" by allowing the takeover of the Dutch bank ABN Amro.

• The Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, was so worried about the health of the banks that he proposed a secret international fund to recapitalise them six months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

• US officials expressed doubts in October 2008 over whether Ireland appreciated how much trouble its banks were in.

In one of two cables referring to the McCann case, the US ambassador notes: "Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents."

He reported that his British counterpart thought "that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors".

It was not until 21 July 2008 that the Portuguese authorities shelved their investigation and lifted the arguido status of the McCanns. Responding to the contents of the cable, a spokesman for the McCanns told the Guardian: "This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old. Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever.

"To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."

British authorities had substantial involvement in the investigation launched after Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 from the holiday apartment where the McCanns had left their three children in bed before joining friends at a nearby restaurant in the Algarve village of Praia da Luz. At least one British sniffer dog was used in the investigation and, according to reports, was said to have picked up the scent of a dead body in the apartment.

In 2008, when a dossier detailing investigations by Portuguese police was made public, it emerged British scientists had warned that DNA tests on a sample from the McCanns' holiday hire car were inconclusive days before they were made suspects. It is known that the Forensic Science Service analysed material sent to Britain by Portuguese police. A spokesman for Leicestershire police said their involvement in the investigation was limited to co-ordinating UK-based inquiries on behalf of the Portuguese authorities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/1 ... ish-police

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:18 am

.
Thanks for that, Vanlose. I wondered if the McCanns would show up in the cables. I hope there's more than that to come, though. It's another "no big surprise" cable, but good to know about. Cheers.
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:13 am

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 53,00.html



12/06/2010 05:47 PM
Blinkered View of Iraq
Diplomats Were Misled by Saddam's 'Cordial' Manner


By Bernhard Zand

Did one clumsy statement by the US ambassador in Iraq trigger the first Gulf War? The leaked US cables show diplomats failed to pick up signs that Saddam Hussein was preparing to invade Kuwait, and that they painted his regime in a consistently favorable light in the years leading up to the conflict.

On the morning of July 25, 1990, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein called in the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. It was her first meeting with Saddam and it lasted two hours. And will likely go down in history as one of the most controversial incidents in American diplomacy.

That very evening, Glaspie cabled her report about the conversation back to Washington. She summarized it under the headline: " Saddam's message of friendship to president bush ."

Just eight days later, war broke out when Saddam's troops marched into Kuwait. The invasion triggered a conflict that would last for more than 15 years and wouldn't even end with Saddam Hussein's death.

It's every diplomat's nightmare. What, though, transpired exactly at Glaspie's meeting with the Iraqi president?

Saddam was under pressure in the summer of 1990. He complained to the US ambassador that eight years of war with Iran had left his country exhausted and heavily indebted. Worse still, neighboring Kuwait was deliberately keeping oil prices low -- so low, in fact, that his country had been forced to cut the pensions it paid widows and orphans.

"At this point," Glaspie's report stated, "the interpreter and one of the notetakers broke down and wept."

Saddam then moved on to the issue of Iraq's disputed border with Kuwait. The conversation became technical, and he began reciting a list of distances in kilometers. "The ambassador," Glaspie wrote of herself, "said that she had served in Kuwait 20 years before; then, as now, we took no position on these Arab affairs."

A few weeks later, the Iraqis broke all diplomatic protocol by releasing a shortened transcript of the conversation. Never before had America weighed the words of one of its diplomats so carefully. Never before had a single sentence been discussed as heatedly as that of ambassador Glaspie.

Critics say her answer "confused" Saddam Hussein, that she had been ambiguous and far too vague. Saddam may have thought the US would not intervene if he attacked Kuwait. As such, they assert, Glaspie had played a decisive role in triggering the outbreak of the war. Her defenders say this criticism is unwarranted. They point out that Glaspie had told Saddam what any diplomat in her position would have said.

The controversy persists to this day. However new, previously unreleased diplomatic dispatches, made public by WikiLeaks, now reveal what the US ambassadors in Baghdad cabled back to Washington between 1985 and 1990. They show the political environment in which Glaspie was operating, America's position on Saddam Hussein at that time, and what led up to her fateful sentence.

The United States broke off diplomatic ties with Iraq after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Conflict. The US Embassy was reopened in 1984, and right from the start, one topic dominated the reports from US diplomats stationed in Baghdad: Iran.

At the time, Saddam's troops were facing off against those of revolutionary Iran from the mountains of Kurdistan to the Shatt al-Arab River, and it was blatantly obvious where America's sympathies lay: Washington wanted Saddam to win.

Glaspie arrived in Iraq in the winter of 1987. At the time she was 46 years old, and had extensive experience in Arab countries. Washington certainly hadn't sent a beginner to Baghdad.

Blinkered View

One of her first trips saw her travel to meet Christians in the north, whose situation she found satisfactory. Whatever "resettlement" may have occurred had ceased weeks earlier. She described Saddam's governor in Mosul province as "unfailingly pleasant," and his security chief as "helpful and compassionate." In fact wherever she looked she was amazed how much money the Iraqi government was spending on its Christian minority. A monastery had been renovated, and "a number of spanking new villages" -- marked "'Saddam model village'" -- had been built.

That may all have been true, but it presented a deliberately blinkered view of Iraq in early 1988. For while Ambassador Glaspie was visiting Mosul, Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid (who ultimately came to be known as "Chemical Ali"), had Kurds in northern Iraq, just 250 kilometers (150 miles) away, bombed with poison gas. On March 16 and 17, 1988, 10 weeks after her visit, a similar fate befell the city of Halabja. Some 5,000 people there were killed on these two days alone, and hundreds more died painful deaths later from the aftereffects of the chemical weapons used against them.

It's not as if the US embassy in Baghdad knew nothing of these attacks. In mid-February, Abd al-Rahman Qassemlu, an Iranian Kurdish leader who had sided with Saddam against Tehran, came to Baghdad. After meeting with the dictator he also dropped in on the US Embassy. He let it be known that he wanted neither money nor weapons. "Of course one always likes more, but we have plenty," he said, according to an Embassy dispatch.

He then recounted what was taking place in the north. The report said the head of its political department "asked Qassemlu for his reaction to the Iraqi campaign of destroying Kurdish villages. Qassemlu acknowledged that "most" villages have been destroyed but he seemed unemotional on the point," the report noted.

Qassemlu told the Americans precisely whom he blamed for the murderous attacks in the north: "Saddam. He is in charge of everything."

Very early on, the American reports began mentioning Iraqi fears that the US would abandon Iraq for closer ties with Tehran. In a cable to Washington, Glaspie wrote: We have reassurad the Iraqis at a high level and through different channels that we do not contemplate "tilting" in either direction."


Excellent Collaboration
Toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war in the spring of 1988, the cables from the US embassy spoke of growing optimism within Iraq. The diplomats reported excellent behind-the-scenes collaboration.


When the Iran-Iraq War finally ended after eight years and almost half a million deaths, Glaspie put the word "victory" in quotation marks; but once the celebrations subsided, the reports once again focused on the Iranian threat that formed the primary link between Saddam's regime and the United States -- and overrode all complaints about murder, chemical weapons and human rights violations."We doubt that the Iraqis are naive enough to believe that any clerical regime in Iran, even after Khomeini dies, will renounce the revolution or its integral elements, expansionism and interference in the internal affairs of other countries, principally Iraq's."

But then, in early 1990, "dark clouds" gathered over Iraq's relationship with the United States, in the words of Saddam himself, speaking at a press conference following a visit by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Saddam blamed the supposed interference by a "Zionist lobby" in US policy for the deterioration. Did this worry the US ambassador? Was she concerned by the choice of words by the Iraqi dictator?

No. She merely sent home a report entitled "Saddam explains and defends." In the dispatch, Glaspie spoke about Saddam's "perhaps stemming from his lifelong effort to promote a sense of identity for 'Iraqis'--a sense he often recalls he lacked as a child." Her assessment of the Iraqi president in April 1990 was as follows: "Saddam is not/not posturing. He is genuinely concerned about Israel and Iran."

In May of that year, Arab League heads of state met in Baghdad against the backdrop of ominous threats by Saddam directed at Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Again, Glaspie praised Saddam's efforts. She said he "took a step forward" and brought Arabs together, albeit at the "lowest common denominator."

"Intellectual Leadership"

Did she really not see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon? In early June Glaspie sent Washington cable headed - apparently without irony -- "intellectual leadership." She said Saddam had recently spent many hours with a group of six men finalizing a new constitution. The ambassador urged the State Department to note the men's names because this project was "important," as if Saddam was seriously thinking about the Iraqi constitution just two months before his troops marched in Kuwait, if indeed this notorious conspirator and spymaster had ever taken any constitution seriously in all his life.

Judging by her memos, the ambassador knew little of the nagging doubts some of Saddam's clique had about his increasingly concrete invasion plans. Rumors that he was under pressure internally were dismissed by Glaspie as mere fabrications on the part of Iran and Iraqi exiles. And she explicitly contradicted a report by the US Embassy in Kuwait that said Saddam's erratic behavior suggested "internal pressures and instability of his regime" - which, with hindsight, seems highly likely. The ambassador in Baghdad insisted Saddam was motivated by many things, but putsch rumors were not one of them.

This was followed by two paragraphs that raise serious doubts about Glaspie's objectivity toward Saddam's regime:"We are not suggesting," she writes, "that there are not occasional 'disciplinary actions' here. For example, the president's long-time Kurdish adc (editor's note: aide-de-camp), Sabah Mirza, undoubtedly blotted his copy book this year. He was arrested and may be dead."

And in any case, she added, Saddam was merely trying to "improve citizens' welfare. The party has no difficulty in turning out thousands of cheering Arab (not kurdish) Iraqis to greet their president."

In June 1990, the US television station ABC broadcast an interview that journalist Diane Sawyer had conducted with Saddam Hussein following mediation by the American Embassy. The Iraqis were furious because the three-hour conversation was edited down to 20 minutes. Again Glaspie called for understanding from both Saddam's personal secretary and from Washington. She said Saddam wasn't "throwing in the towel." He was standing by his "new policy of availability to the western press (le figaro is next) and in his willingness to let the Iraqi public see and hear him uncut, warts and all."

Sawyer's interview also came up in Glaspie's contentious conversation with Saddam on July 25. Glaspie wrote, referring to herself. "The ambassador said she had seen the Diane Sawyer show and thought that it was cheap and unfair. But the American press treats all politicians without kid gloves--that is our way."

Saddam "Cordial, Reasonable and Even Warm"

Whether her comment about American neutrality in Arab border disputes caused Saddam to decide to march into Kuwait is a question that perhaps only Saddam himself could answer with certainty. But the leaked embassy dispatches show that Glaspie and her predecessor painted the regime in an extremely favorable light from the very outset, overlooked Saddam's widely-known crimes, and were so influenced by mutual enmity for Iran as to be negligently uncritical. This attitude certainly influenced Glaspie's fateful meeting with Saddam.

The president's manner was "cordial, reasonable and even warm," her account of the meeting begins. It ends by concluding that he was undoubtedly sincere in seeking "a peaceful settlement" to the conflict with neighboring Kuwait. In between is paragraph after paragraph listing the alleged selfishness of Kuwait and the sacrifices and peaceful intentions of the Iraqis.

Saddam Hussein undoubtedly deceived the US ambassador, albeit also to his own detriment. But she didn't make it particularly difficult for him.

The Embassy cabled four more dispatches to Washington before the outbreak of war. One begins with the mistaken belief that Saddam really was responding to the most recent mediation attempts by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, but ends with the ethnological analysis that says more about the motives for going to war than many a later assessment:

"It is difficult to overstate the depth of anti-Kuwaiti sentiment in Iraq. This is the extremely important backdrop to current tensions. The dislike is old and deep -- not something trumped up by the media for the occasion.

"The Kuwaitis who come to Iraq with pockets full of iraqi dinars (purchased at the black market rate which is less than one-tenth of the official rate) and which they ostentatiously spend, are not the educated middle classes -- they go to Europe. Iraq gets the equivalent of "po white trash", the lower middle classes, who can be seen in Basra in their scores on a Friday, and in the northern summer resorts, often drunk, sometimes disorderly, and often gambling in the otherwise empty casinos. They also come to Baghdad in droves, providing the clientele for cheap nightclubs and call girls.

Iraqis deeply feel that the kuwaitis are immensely stingy shylocks living high while Iraq, which made such terrible sacrifices during the war, it still suffering. "

Four days later after that, Ambassador Glaspie flew to Washington. Seven days later, on August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops marched into Kuwait.

On that day, Glaspie's deputy, Joseph Wilson, who became famous 13 years later as the husband of unmasked CIA spy Valerie Plame, sent the State Department the shortest message the embassy in Baghdad had ever cabled:We have tried repeatedly since 0630 local to reach senior mfa (editor's note: Foreign Ministry) officials, including foreign minister Aziz. Undersecretary Hamdun is apparently not at home since nobody answers his home telephone number … Embassy has set up a crisis management team."

Saddam had struck. And overnight, he went from being an American ally of almost 10 years to being a deadly enemy. Everything that had seemed right before, was suddenly wrong.

URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 53,00.html
RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS:
US Involvement in Iraq: A Lot of Blood for Little Oil (12/06/2010)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 84,00.html
SPIEGEL 360: Our Complete Coverage of the WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables
http://www.spiegel.de/international/top ... ic_cables/


© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2010
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15988
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:24 am

WikiLeaks Cables: BP Suffered Blowout on Azerbaijan Gas Platform
Embassy cables reveal energy firm 'fortunate' to have evacuated workers safely after blast similar to Deepwater Horizon disaster
by Tim Webb
Striking resemblances between BP's Gulf of Mexico disaster and a little-reported giant gas leak in Azerbaijan experienced by the UK firm 18 months beforehand have emerged from leaked US embassy cables.

Eleven people died when BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and it caused the worst oil spill in US history. Photograph: AFP/Getty ImagesThe cables reveal that some of BP's partners in the gas field were upset that the company was so secretive about the incident that it even allegedly withheld information from them. They also say that BP was lucky that it was able to evacuate its 212 workers safely after the incident, which resulted in two fields being shut and output being cut by at least 500,000 barrels a day with production disrupted for months.

Other cables leaked tonight claim that the president of Azerbaijan accused BP of stealing $10bn of oil from his country and using "mild blackmail" to secure the rights to develop vast gas reserves in the Caspian Sea region.

WikiLeaks also released cables claiming that:

Senior figures in Thailand are concerned about the suitability of the crown prince to become king, citing rumors that he has lovers in several European capitals in addition to his wife and son in Thailand.
American energy firm Chevron was in discussions with Tehran about developing an Iraq-Iran cross-border oilfield, despite US sanctions against Iran.
The leaks came as the whistleblower site's founder Julian Assange prepared for another night in jail ahead of tomorrow's high court challenge to the decision to grant him £200,000 bail. Swedish authorities, who want to question Assange on allegations of sexual assault, believe he should remain in custody as he is a flight risk.

On the Azerbaijan gas leak, a cable reports for the first time that BP suffered a blowout in September 2008, as it did in the Gulf with devastating consequences in April, as well as the gas leak that the firm acknowledged at the time.

"Due to the blowout of a gas-injection well there was 'a lot of mud' on the platform, which BP would analyze to help find the cause of the blowout and gas leak," the cable said.

Written a few weeks after the incident, the cable said Bill Schrader, BP's then head of Azerbaijan, admitted it was possible the company "would never know" the cause although it "is continuing to methodically investigate possible theories".

According to another cable, in January 2009 BP thought that a "bad cement job" was to blame for the gas leak in Azerbaijan. More recently, BP's former chief executive Tony Hayward also partly blamed a "bad cement job" by contractor Halliburton for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The blowout in the Gulf led to the deaths of 11 workers and the biggest accidental offshore oil spill in history.

BP was also criticized for not initially sharing all its information with the US authorities about the scale of the Gulf spill. The gas field in the Caspian Sea was in production when the leak and blow out occurred, unlike the well in the Gulf which was being drilled to explore for oil.

BP declined to answer questions put by the Guardian about the cause of the Azerbaijan gas leak and who carried out the cement job, pointing to a general statement it had made about the cables.

The cable reveals that the company had a narrow escape. "Given the explosive potential, BP was quite fortunate to have been able to evacuate everyone safely and to prevent any gas ignition. Schrader said although the story hadn't caught the press's attention, it had the full focus of the [government of Azerbaijan], which was losing '$40-50m each day'."

The leak happened at the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshi (ACG) field, Azerbaijan's largest producing oil field in the Caspian where vast undeveloped gas reserves also lie. BP is the operator and largest shareholder in the consortium, which includes US companies Chevron, ExxonMobil and Hess (formerly Amerada Hess), as well as Norwegian firm Statoil and Azerbaijani state owned oil company Socar.

BP comes in for criticism for allegedly limiting the information it made available about the incident. Another cable records shortly after the incident: "ACG operator BP has been exceptionally circumspect in disseminating information about the ACG gas leak, both to the public and to its ACG partners. However, after talking with BP and other sources, the embassy has pieced together the following picture." It goes on to say the incident took place when bubbles appeared in the waters around the Central Azeri platform, signaling a nearby gas leak. "Shortly thereafter, a related gas-reinjection well for Central Azeri had a blowout, expelling water, mud and gas." BP's annual report last year referred to a "comprehensive review of the subsurface gas release" having taken place and remedial work being carried out.

The cable continues: "At least some of BP's ACG partners are similarly upset with BP's performance in this episode, as they claim BP has sought to limit information flow about this event even to its ACG partners. Although it is too early to ascertain the cause, if in fact this production shutdown was due to BP technical error, and if it continues for months (as seems possible), BP's reputation in Azerbaijan will take a serious hit."

BP is in charge of Azerbaijan's key energy projects, and has a significant influence across the region. In late 2006 discussions were taking place about when Turkey would be able to link up its own network to a new pipeline operated by BP transporting gas across the Caucasus from BP's giant new Shah Deniz field in Azerbaijan. The new pipeline was seen as crucial as reducing the region's dependence on unreliable gas supplies from Russia, particularly amidst rising gas prices.

According to one cable, BP's outgoing Azerbaijan president, David Woodward, said in November 2006 that BP thought it unlikely that Turkey would be able to complete its work before spring 2007. "However, he added that 'it was not inconceivable' that Botas [Turkey's state pipeline company] could 'rush finish' the job so that it would be ready to receive gas shortly, although the pipeline would not meet international standards," the cable said. In the end, BP said Turkey began receiving gas from Shah Deniz in July 2007.

The cables also reveal BP concerns on the lack of security at the time around its oil and gas installations, particularly in the Caspian Sea, which it believed made them vulnerable to terrorist attack. One cable from July 2007 records: "BP Azerbaijan president Bill Schrader has told US officials in private conversations, 'all it would take is one guy with a mortar or six guys in a boat' to wreak havoc in Azerbaijan's critical energy infrastructure."

BP officials also complained about a shortage of Navy and Coast Guard boats - mostly Soviet era and built in the 1960s and 1970s - to patrol the waters around the platforms. It was also not clear which government agency or branch of the military was in charge, meaning a "response to a crisis offshore could be problematic" , one cable in August 2008 recorded.

The oil firm said BP "enjoys the continued support and goodwill of the government and the people of Azerbaijan".

The oil firm said in a statement that: "BP continues to have a successful and mutually beneficial partnership with the government of Azerbaijan. This cooperation has produced and continues to produce benefits to all parties involved and most importantly to the nation of Azerbaijan. The Government of Azerbaijan has entrusted us with the development of its major oil and gas development projects on the basis of Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) that are enacted as laws in Azerbaijan. The operatorship of PSAs of this scale and size require cooperation and alignment between contractors and the Government. BP in Azerbaijan enjoys the continued support and goodwill of the Government and the people of Azerbaijan to meet its obligations. As part of maintaining this successful partnership we meet and discuss business related matters with relevant parties including our partners, SOCAR, and the Government. These discussions are confidential and as such we will maintain that confidentiality and not comment on specifics."
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:09 am

Cables show Portugal’s role in secret CIA prisoner flights
By Patrick Martin
17 December 2010

The Portuguese government allowed the CIA to use Lajes Air Base in the Azores for flights to repatriate prisoners held at the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, but kept the arrangement secret because of public opposition to its previous collaboration with CIA rendition flights, according to US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

The series of cables sent by the US ambassador in Lisbon in 2006 and 2007 gives a glimpse into how Washington manages its relations with a client state whose government is completely subservient to US foreign policy, but whose population is hostile, particularly to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The first cable, in September 2006, is concerned with the aftermath of the scandal over CIA rendition flights, moving prisoners to secret “black site” prisons or to Guantanamo Bay, where they were interrogated and tortured. These flights made use of Lajes, a key transit point for the US military and intelligence operations in the region. More than 3,000 flights related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pass through Lajes each year.

The Portuguese government publicly maintained that it was unaware of the CIA rendition flights and had not given them a private green light. The cable from Ambassador Alfred Hoffman notes approvingly that Foreign Minister Luis Amado was continuing this cover-up: “During recent closed testimony before the Portuguese Parliament, he did not diverge from his predecessor's position that the Portuguese government was not aware of any CIA flights on/through Portugal.”
The cable reports that the Portuguese minister enthusiastically supported giving the CIA permission to use Lajes to repatriate prisoners from Guantanamo: “Amado said that the return of Guantanamo detainees would be an excellent opportunity for the USG to ‘turn the page’ and to begin working on a new human rights image.”

Despite this reference to burnishing the image of the Bush administration, badly discredited by the revelations of secret CIA torture prisons, Amado still insisted that the return flights had to be kept secret from the Portuguese people and from the European Parliament, which was then in an uproar over the exposure of the rendition flights. The secrecy was required at least in part because the repatriations frequently involved transferring Guantanamo detainees to even worse prisons in their home countries, where they would be subject to abuse and torture.

The cable continues, recording the hostility of the Portuguese social democrat to the working people his party purports to represent: “In addition to European Parliament agitation on this issue, Amado expressed a need to control his own Socialist Party. He said there was not a broad consensus within the party to pursue a strong transatlantic foreign policy and that there was concern that the ‘left wing’ within the party could break away in response to the government's handling of human rights and security issues.”

The cable concludes that Amado “is very pro-American and extremely accessible,” and that he backed US foreign policy both in the Middle East, particularly emphasizing the supposed danger of Iran, and in Latin America, where he was trying to delay an official visit by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Portugal, but “could not hold him off forever.”

The next cable, written a month later, followed a public scene in the Portuguese parliament where Amado angrily threatened to resign over accusations that he had covered up secret CIA rendition flights through Lajes. The cable notes: “the saga continues due to continued opposition party and European Parliament pressure. This pressure complicates the US request to repatriate Guantanamo detainees via Portugal.”

Amado’s actual statement to parliament, that there was no evidence that laws had been broken “on Portuguese soil,” had an obvious and glaring loophole. It merely meant that the CIA torture had taken place in some other country.

As the cable explains: “Amado admitted that the alleged CIA flights might have come through Portugal, but added that Portugal ‘has nothing to be ashamed of.’ According to the Minister, there is no evidence that the CIA committed illegal acts in Portuguese territory …”

The cable goes on to alert its Washington readers that the government of Portugal needed reassurances during an upcoming meeting between Amado and Condoleezza Rice that the CIA repatriation flights were “on solid legal ground.”

Portuguese law, the cable continued, “requires written assurance by the final destination country that detainees will not be tortured or receive the death penalty as well as a US guarantee that they will be treated according to internationally-recognized conventions in the destination country. Without these assurances, the GOP [government of Portugal] will have difficulty in supporting repatriation flights through Portuguese territory or airspace.”

It is doubtful that the “final destination countries” gave such assurances in writing, and if they did, the declarations were worthless. The Azores base would likely have been used for trans-Atlantic flights to such countries as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, all of which routinely torture prisoners, particularly those suspected of affiliation with Islamist political currents.

Another cable followed directed to Rice, briefing her on the upcoming meeting with Amado. It deserves extensive quotation because of its unvarnished political cynicism.

Foreign Minister Amado, it reads, “is pro-US, committed to a strong NATO and Transatlantic relationship and seeks to coordinate policy with the US. He places great importance on presenting a united public front, whether it be within the EU, NATO or with the US. If there are differences, he prefers to discuss them discreetly behind closed doors. Minister Amado last visited the U.S. in his official capacity of Minister of Defense in November 2005 when he had a personal meeting with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. He is still smarting from being stood up by the NSC-Crouch during last year's visit. It would be to our benefit to stroke him a lot” (emphasis added).
The cable continues: “It would be of great assistance if you could personally express appreciation for Amado’s steadfastness in supporting the US position on this issue and his continued contribution of troops to global operations.”

The next cable was sent the following summer, in July 2007, as a scene-setter for Rice’s upcoming trip to Europe, which included a reciprocal visit to Portugal. In the course of reviewing the Lisbon regime’s general alignment with US foreign policy, including small deployments of military units in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the cable notes the conclusion of the discussions over secret CIA flights.

“Amado agreed to allow the repatriation of prisoners through Lajes Air Base on a case-by-case basis under limited circumstances. This was a difficult decision, given the sustained criticism by Portuguese media and leftist elements of his own party of the government’s handling of the CIA rendition flights controversy. Amado’s agreement has never been made public” (emphasis added).

The Portuguese people were thus kept in the dark about their own government’s collaboration in the US “war on terror.”

There is no mention in this cable of Amado’s request for assurances that the prisoners transported would not be tortured when they arrived back in their home countries, nor of the fate of any of these prisoners.

The cable concludes with the following appreciation of Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates: “He is a very moderate Socialist who has been successful at co-opting or marginalizing the leftists in his party. He also aggressively pursued his domestic agenda before assuming the EU presidency, achieving difficult labor and social security reforms and reducing Portugal’s budget deficit to near EU-mandated levels.”

There is little to add to this characterization, except to say that, in the current European-wide financial crisis, Socrates has fully vindicated this assessment of his right-wing political orientation. He has rammed through repeated austerity measures, cutting jobs, wages and public services, and doing the bidding of the big European and American banks.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec20 ... -d17.shtml

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:11 am

Cables reveal US considered “state of exception” in Mexico
By Kevin Kearney
15 December 2010

A series of US diplomatic cables from late 2009 released by WikiLeaks summarize an on-going discussion between the US government and Mexican Secretary of Defense (SEDENA) General Guillermo Galvan Galvan on the merits of declaring “a state of exception”—roughly the equivalent to martial law or a state of siege—to facilitate military operations against Mexico’s civilian population.

Ultimately, the cables indicate, the US embassy rejected the idea, not out of any concern for democratic rights or international legality, but rather because such a declaration could give the Mexican legislature some oversight in the country’s disastrous US-backed “war on drugs.”

The principal cable—reference number 3101—gives a breathtaking glimpse of the US involvement in and guidance of the war and the sheer subservience of the Mexican government to the dictates of Washington on the most essential questions of national sovereignty. It begins by noting that Defense Secretary Galvan Galvan had suggested the possibility of invoking “article 29” of the Mexican Constitution—declaring a “state of exception”—so as to provide “more solid legal grounds” for the military’s role in the “domestic counternarcotics fight.”

Galvan Galvan’s sudden preoccupation with the legality of the war in this period stems from the fact that the massive domestic deployment of the military throughout the country in late 2007 was launched with nothing more than a sudden executive declaration by President Felipe Calderon—tacitly accepted by every major political party in the country to this day.

Moreover, by early 2009—just before these cables were written—Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), an independent government agency, had reported that the Mexican army was engaged in systematic torture, exposing a practice of arbitrary detentions, beatings and electrical shocks against innocent Mexicans with little or no connection to the drug trade.

Both Calderon and Galvan Galvan were directly cited in these denunciations, which soon attracted international attention. In a 2009 interview with the Washington Post, the mayor of Ciudad Juarez, José Reyes Ferriz, said President Felipe Calderón and Defense Secretary Guillermo Galván Galván were then involved in every major decision regarding security in the city, adding that Ciudad Juarez was intended as a “national model” for other cities in Mexico. The growing public rejection of the war and Calderon’s waning popularity seem to have triggered anxiety that high officials could be held accountable for the bloodshed.

The cable describes Galvan Galvan as “lamenting” the lack of legal basis for the domestic activities of the Mexican military and notes “public perception that the Armed Forces lack the appropriate authority to conduct such operations.” To this end, the cable’s author calculates that the declaration of a “state of exception” under article 29 could provide “a temporary legal cover” for the military’s activities and “allow it to focus more on operations and less on its critics”—in other words, continue to illegally detain, torture and murder Mexican citizens with impunity.

Other cables unintentionally confirm the accusations of human rights organizations against the military. While they claim that most of the country was relatively safe in 2009, and most of the war victims were either state forces or drug traffickers, they also reveal that there is no process of investigation to determine whether the dead were actually drug traffickers and nearly no information to determine in advance the identity of drug traffickers in a given area. Such statements illustrate a situation on the ground in Mexico where anyone unfortunate enough to be detained or killed by the military is considered a “drug trafficker” as a matter of course.

The cable’s author weighs the benefits of article 29 before ultimately deciding against it: “the GOM (government of Mexico) could elect to apply the article in a zone of perceived crisis, such as Ciudad Juarez…suspend rights…including freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of passage, or some tenets of legal due process. The military, for example, might be granted broader detention authorities.”

In the most telling portion of the cable, the author cites the major detriment of such a declaration, “This would give Congress at least nominal oversight over the military’s counternarcotics operations, a role it has sought but not had up to this point.” The import of this statement should not be overlooked.

While the US has trumpeted Mexico’s “war on drugs” as a noble fight to defend democracy to which all law-abiding Mexicans are committed, behind closed doors it acknowledges that the war is largely unpopular, is very likely illegal and is being waged without any real plan or legislative oversight—a situation the US government and its well-placed Mexican counterparts carefully seek to perpetuate.

Yet the Embassy doesn’t reject the option of military rule outright, saying, “the possibility of such a declaration cannot be discounted at some future date.”
Since early 2007, the US government has provided millions in cash, military technology and trainers, promising billions more via the “Merida Initiative.” In spite of years of senseless carnage and systemic human rights violations—including torture—the Obama administration proudly calls itself a “full partner” in Mexico’s bloody drug war, deploying unknown numbers of US government agents, expensive domestic surveillance equipment and military hardware south of the US border.

The US government’s expanding involvement in Mexico’s national life via the war is demonstrated in several other cables in which embassy officials repeatedly enthuse about the relationship between the two governments. This is fleshed out in cable number 2882, dated October 5, 2009.

Under the heading “GOM wants full transfer of intel technology and training,” the cable notes the Mexican attorney general’s desire for “a more general exchange of intelligence information and capacity, not the case-by-case exchange we now have.” The cable goes on to state that the FBI is helping to create a cyber-unit in Mexico. On this subject, the two governments discussed the benefits of such a program being “expanded and replicated more broadly” throughout the country.

After asking US officials for even more training, technology and resources, Mexico’s then undersecretary for governance, Geronimo Gutierrez Fernandez, expresses his concern that the government would be unable to perpetuate the war. Under the heading “We have 18 months,” Gutierrez Fernandez warned embassy officials. “We have 18 months and if we do not produce a tangible success that is recognizable to the Mexican people, it will be difficult to sustain the confrontation into the next administration.”

Gutierrez Fernandez then acknowledged the government has already lost control of some areas of the country—something never publicly admitted by a member of Calderon’s cabinet. Significantly, the cable’s author also notes Gutierrez Fernandez’s request for “joint operations” involving US forces over the next two years in selective areas of the country.

While the language of the cables constantly refers to the budding relationship between the two military forces as one of “greater integration,” what is revealed is Mexico’s complete domination by US imperialism via the drug war. The discussions recounted in the cables portray a cabal of Mexican politicians and military men acting as the direct agents of US foreign policy in the country.

Oddly, every proposal for a greater US role in the country is portrayed as the suggestion—or in some cases the desperate plea—of a Mexican official, while statements and suggestions of US officials are largely omitted or reduced to a bare minimum. This doesn’t square with the balance of forces between the two countries and is likely a consciously adopted way of providing deniability on controversial issues.

Considering the fact that the US Department of Defense—through its Joint Forces Command (USJFC)—had actually suggested the US military may need to intervene in Mexico’s drug war about eight months prior to the cables broaching a declaration of a “state of exception,” it is hard to see this as simply the initiative of Galvan Galvan, without any input or direction from the US government.

The question naturally arises: what is the aim of all this US-Mexico military integration? Cable number 3061 from October 23, 2009, summarizes a meeting between Calderon and US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that outlined a suggested shift in military focus from drug traffickers to political opponents and a possible regional role for the newly “integrated” Mexican military.

After declaring to Blair his belief that “Hugo Chavez funded the PRD opposition during the presidential campaign nearly four years ago”—referring to the sustained mass civil disobedience rejecting Calderon’s election in 2006 in favor of the Revolutionary Democratic Party candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador—Calderon encouraged the US to take into account “the link among Iran, Venezuela, drugs, narcotics trafficking, and rule of law issues.”

According to the cable’s author, Calderon “emphasized that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is active everywhere,” while assuring Blair that Mexico was attempting to isolate Venezuela through the Rio Group. However, he “exhorted the U.S. to watch Guatemala and Belize, since their internal weaknesses make them vulnerable.” Significantly, the cable notes, “Calderon indicated that he would assess the possibility of creating a joint strike force capability” with the US military.

Calderon’s comments about Chavez are telling in the sense that the popular rejection of his presidency and allegations of fraud in 2006 were, at root, a manifestation of anger over worsening living conditions and economic polarization in the country. That Calderon cites such mass political opposition from the left as an issue of national security to his US sponsors serves as a warning to the working class. The entire legal and military framework erected via the drug war and backed by US militarism can and will be directed against any serious political opposition arising in Mexico or Central America.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec20 ... -d15.shtml

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby vanlose kid » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:14 am

Cables bare US operations in Brazil
By Bill Van Auken
14 December 2010

Scores of cables between the US State Department and the American embassy in Brasilia released by WikiLeaks have laid bare the ruthless pursuit of US imperialist interests in Latin America’s largest country.

What emerges from the messages sent from the embassy in Brasilia to Washington is a policy aimed at subordinating Brazil to US interests by promoting “counter-terrorism” as the decisive issue and by pursuing back-channel relations with Brazilian military and security officials.

This orientation, the cables indicate, is based on a barely concealed contempt for civilian control. In a country that was ruled for two decades by a military dictatorship backed by Washington, the implications of these relationships are sobering.

Speaking before an audience of lawyers in São Paulo last week, US Ambassador to Brazil Thomas Shannon condemned WikiLeaks’ actions as “very dangerous,” while comparing their impact on US-Brazilian relations to problems in a marriage.

“If someone were to knock on your door and tell you that they have tapes of all of your conversations with your wife and that they are prepared to publish them, would you think that this transparency is something useful or something harmful?” Shannon said.

Media reports of Shannon’s speech gave no indication of how his audience reacted to the Brazilian government being portrayed as Washington’s “wife.”
One of the more revealing cables among those released by WikiLeaks describes a luncheon meeting between then-US Ambassador John Danilovich and Gen. Jorge Armando Felix in May 2005.

General Felix, who rose through the officer corps under the dictatorship, is now the chief minister of the Institutional Security Cabinet (known by the Portuguese acronym GSI) of the presidency, a position that is roughly equivalent to the US national security adviser. He is also chief of the Brazilian National Intelligence Agency. He personifies the continuity of the National Information Service or SNI, the hated secret police of the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985.

The document, which was marked “secret,” details a discussion that began on the so-called “tri-border region” where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet. It has been an obsession of US foreign policy in the region for the last decade, with Washington’s claims that it is a hotbed of terrorism.

While the Brazilian government has publicly rejected the US view of an alleged threat, “General Felix admitted that there were serious problems in the region and that the illegal movement of arms, money, drugs and the like through the region was of concern to the Brazilian Government,” the cable states.

The US ambassador then turned the discussion to Venezuela and the government of President Hugo Chavez, Washington’s other major obsession in the region. Danilovich “noted that Chavez was disrupting Brazil’s efforts to play a leading role politically and economically in South America,” the cable recounts.
It continues: “General Felix nodded his head and appeared to be very carefully measuring his response. He then said that he had his own personal opinions about Chavez (which he did not share) that were different from the Brazilian Government’s position.”

The cable concludes: “General Felix has always been a straightforward interlocutor, and his term at GSI has been highlighted by very cooperative, joint CT [counter-terrorism] operations…. All in all, his continued presence at GSI bodes well for U.S. interests.”

Such is the confidential diplomacy that Washington wants to conceal. A right-wing American ambassador elicits a brief statement from a leading military and intelligence official that his position and that of the elected government do not coincide. On that basis, a conclusion is reached that this is man who can serve Washington’s interests.

Ironically, when General Felix was asked by the US ambassador what assistance he might need from the US, the general responded that the Brazilian government “was falling behind in protecting its own classified and unclassified computer systems. Felix said that he would welcome any assistance (courses, visitors, etc.) in this area.” This was, of course, five years before hundreds of thousands of classified US cables were delivered into the hands of WikiLeaks.
Many of the subsequent cables also centered on the issue of terrorism and complaints by US officials over the alleged failure of the Brazilian government to treat it with due importance.

One chief grievance expressed by the US diplomats has been the Brazilian government’s failure to enact anti-terrorism legislation.
General Felix’s Institutional Security Cabinet had initiated a move toward creating such legislation in 2004, but it has been repeatedly shelved.

A November 2008 cable from Ambassador Sobel cites a conversation between the embassy’s “poloff,” or political officer—generally a cover for the CIA—and an individual identified as “Soloszyn,” a strategic intelligence analyst at Brazil’s Superior War College. The real name of the individual in question was Maj. André Luis Woloszyn, a Brazilian officer who underwent advanced training in the US.

Woloszyn told the US official that “there was little chance that this particular government, stacked with leftist militants who had been the object of military dictatorship-era laws designed to repress politically-motivated violence, was going to put forth a bill that would criminalize the actions of groups it sympathizes with, such as the Landless Movement (MST).”

The Brazilian officer insisted that “there is no a way to write an anti-terrorism legislation that excludes the actions of the MST,” which has led land occupations that have ended in violent confrontations.

The brief report provides a window into the mindset of the Brazilian military, which upholds the savage repression unleashed by the dictatorship against the Brazilian left, the unions, students and peasant movements in the name of combating “terrorism,” and which views movements of social struggle and opposition today through a similar prism.

While Brazil has no specific anti-terror law—and has publicly opposed Washington’s branding of political movements like Hamas and Hezbollah as “terrorist”—its security forces have surreptitiously introduced their own means of dealing with alleged terror suspects, according to the cables.

A secret cable sent by Ambassador Sobel to Washington in January 2008 spells out this frame-up technique employed by the Brazilian security forces.
“The Federal Police will often arrest individuals with links to terrorism, but will charge them on a variety of non-terrorism related crimes to avoid calling attention of the media and the higher levels of the government,” the cable states. “Over the past year, the Federal Police has arrested various individuals engaged in suspected terrorism financing activity but have based their arrests on narcotics and customs charges.”

The statement that these frame-up methods are employed to avoid calling the attention of “higher levels of the government” would suggest that elements in the military-police apparatus are secretly collaborating with the US anti-terror campaign directed at individuals whom the Brazilian government officially does not consider terrorists.

Another key concern reflected in the cables was Washington’s campaign to win an $8 billion contract to provide 36 new fighter planes to Brazil’s Air Force. The US government was acting as the agent for the aerospace giant Boeing, which was trying to sell its F/A-18 Super Hornet, in competition with the French firm Dassault, which was selling its Rafale jet. After a year of intense competition, outgoing President Lula has announced that no decision will be made before he leaves office in January, and it is widely believed that the planned purchase will be scrapped.

The cables provide insight into the way in which the US embassy sought to work through figures in the Brazilian military establishment to promote the Boeing sale. In particular, Brazil’s Defense Minister Nelson Jobim and the chief of the Brazilian Air Force, Brigadier Juniti Saito, were seen as in Washington’s camp. In one cable sent by then-Ambassador Clifford Sobel last January, Saito was described as “a key ally in our FX2 [fighter jet] bid.” Jobim is referred to as “one of the most trustworthy leaders in Brazil.”

Jobim apparently earned this trust by providing inside information on his colleagues in the Brazilian government. He is quoted in one of the cables as confiding to Ambassador Sobel that Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães, the former secretary-general of Brazil’s foreign ministry and current minister for strategic affairs, was someone who “hates the United States” and “creates problems” between the two countries.

Similar financial calculations were expressed in cables dealing with the Brazil’s plans for the exploration of the pre-salt reserves off the country’s Atlantic coast. The embassy’s concerns were the same as those of Chevron and Exxon-Mobil that the rules for the participation of foreign corporations would be more restrictive and less lucrative.

Another thread that runs through the cables, despite their revelations of the maneuvers with the military and other officials seen as more amendable to Washington’s demands, is Washington’s view of the ruling Workers Party (PT) as posing no threat to capitalist interests in Brazil and elsewhere in the hemisphere.

This is spelled out in one of the earliest cables dating from November 2002, which details meetings in Brasilia between then Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich and President-elect Lula da Silva and his principal advisors.

Reich, an extreme right-wing anticommunist Cuban exile, takes the measure of these supposed “workers’ ” representatives and clearly sees them as people with whom he can do business. “We are not afraid of the PT and its social agenda,” Reich told Lula.

The cable quotes Lula as saying how eager he is to meet then-President George W. Bush and that he is sure that “two politicians like us will understand each other when we meet face to face.” He and his advisers stressed to Reich that they would uphold all agreements between previous governments and the US, the IMF and other international financial institutions.

Subsequent cables build upon this initial understanding, with Brazilian officials making it clear that the US should not take any stray left rhetoric from the Workers Party seriously.

Thus, a cable from November 2006, after Lula’s election to a second term as president, cites a discussion with his personal chief of staff Gilberto Carvalho who “asked for the ambassador’s understanding if rhetoric during the election campaign had occasionally seemed critical of the US.”

A September 2009 cable chronicles a frank exchange of views between top Brazilian officials and the visiting US national security adviser, Gen. James Jones.
The visit followed the announcement that the US had obtained several new bases in Colombia, giving it the capacity to deploy military forces throughout the hemisphere.

Dilma Rousseff, then the president’s chief of staff and now the president-elect, was the first to speak. She told General Jones that the Brazilian government “finds it disconcerting to be faced with questions from the press regarding why the United States needs such bases.”

The cable continues, “According to Rousseff, issues such as this open the door for radicals who want to create problems in the region.”

She was followed by Defense Minister Nelson Jobim, who sounded a similar theme, saying that issues like the Colombian bases became a problem when the Brazilian government “learns of them through the press.” Jobim added, however, that the PT government “is often surprised by the sensitivities of ‘Spanish America’ regarding issues that would be considered innocuous elsewhere.”

Jones responded by urging Jobim to call him if he had any “doubts about US intentions.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec20 ... -d14.shtml

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels WIKI!

Postby matrixdutch » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:29 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/16/wikileaks-dalai-lama-climate-change

WikiLeaks cables: Dalai Lama called for focus on climate, not politics, in Tibet

The Dalai Lama told US diplomats last year that the international community should focus on climate change rather than politics in Tibet because environmental problems were more urgent, secret American cables reveal.

The exiled Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader told Timothy Roemer, the US ambassador to India, that the "political agenda should be sidelined for five to 10 years and the international community should shift its focus to climate change on the Tibetan plateau" during a meeting in Delhi last August.

"Melting glaciers, deforestation and increasingly polluted water from mining projects were problems that 'cannot wait', but the Tibetans could wait five to 10 years for a political solution," he was reported as saying.

Though the Dalai Lama has frequently raised environmental issues, he has never publicly suggested that political questions take second place, nor spoken of any timescale with such precision.

Roemer speculated, in his cable to Washington reporting the meeting, that "the Dalai Lama's message may signal a broader shift in strategy to reframe the Tibet issue as an environmental concern".

In their meeting, the ambassador reported, the Dalai Lama criticised China's energy policy, saying dam construction in Tibet had displaced thousands of people and left temples and monasteries underwater.

He recommended that the Chinese authorities compensate Tibetans for disrupting their nomadic lifestyle with vocational training, such as weaving, and said there were "three poles" in danger of melting – the north pole, the south pole, and "the glaciers at the pole of Tibet".

The cables also reveal the desperate appeals made by the Dalai Lama for intervention by the US during unrest in Tibet during spring 2008.

As a heavy crackdown followed demonstrations and rioting, he pleaded with US officials to take action that would "make an impact" in Beijing.

At the end of one 30-minute meeting, a cable reports that the Dalai Lama embraced the embassy's officials and "made a final plea".

"Tibet is a dying nation. We need America's help," he was reported as saying.

Other cables reveal US fears that the influence of the 75-year-old Dalai Lama over the Tibetan community in exile might be waning or that a succession to his leadership could pose problems.

In June 2008, officials reported that their visit to six Tibetan refugee settlements across north and north-eastern India "underscores concerns that frustrated and dissatisfied Tibetan youth ... could pose serious problems".

"A widening generational divide finds Tibetan leaders unable to resolve growing dissatisfaction among younger Tibetans," the officials said.

In February, following the ninth round of talks in Beijing between the Tibetan government in exile, known as the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), and Chinese officials, US diplomats predicted that "the Chinese government's international credibility on human rights will continue to decline as Tibetans gain further access to media tools".

In a section of the cable entitled "A militant Shangri-La?", a reference to the fictional mythical Himalayan kingdom, the officials explained: "Their frustration's effect on the Tibetan movement could be exacerbated by the passage of time, as the Dalai Lama's increasing age inevitably slows down his gruelling travel schedule and his potential ability to continue to capture the world's attention on his people's plight."

A final point, made repeatedly by officials, is that the Indian government's policy towards the Tibetans in exile is likely to be decided by public sentiment.

In one confidential cable of March 2008, an official told Washington that Shiv Shankar Menon, the current Indian national security adviser and then India's top diplomat, had explained to the US ambassador that though "the Tibetan movement has the sympathy of the Indian public, and India has been a generally supportive home to tens of thousands of Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, for nearly 50 years ... the tacit agreement that Tibetans are welcome in India as long as they don't cause problems is being challenged at a time when India's complex relationship with Beijing is churning with border issues, rivalry for regional influence, a growing economic interdependence, the nascent stages of joint military exercises, and numerous other priorities".

The US officials concluded that "while the [government of India] will never admit it", New Delhi's "balancing act with India's Tibetans [would] continue for the foreseeable future, with the caveat that a rise in violence – either by Tibetans here or by the Chinese security forces in Tibet – could quickly tip the balance in favour of the side with greater public support".
Our truth consists of illusions that we have forgotten are illusions - Nietzsche
User avatar
matrixdutch
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests