It did not take long for the markets to react to rumors that Wiki leaks founder, Julian Assange, who released cables of diplomatic communications among American Embassy officials and Washington DC was about to release intricate business decisions taken by Bank of America, before the bank officials began to deny claims. Bank of American shares were falling like a yo-yo in early trading on the New York Stock exchange. The fear of opaque transactions in a prominent American Bank translated into fears among investors. The markets became bogged down by rumors that Mr. Julian Assange was about to call the shots on the way banking transaction across the globe were carried out. And, just as hell was about to break loose, some government officials both here and overseas were putting out interpol arrest warrant for the new internet crusader.
The thought of having deals manipulations between commercial banks' heavyweights made public the way the embassy officials communications were released in recent days, made some bank officials go into fit at the headquarters of the Bank of America. According to Bank of America, the probability that its institution’s records, including documents, emails databases and internal websites may have been compromised, is very remote. While the founder of Wiki leaks promised that his 5GB of Bank of America’s profile with his organization will expose an ecosystem of corruption and could take down a couple of banks, made this claim rather intimidating and would probably make doing businesses with banks and investors difficult. While officials at Bank of America are crossing their hands and hoping for the best, our blog today is looking at the implication for monetary regimes and national sovereignty of the new development in the releases of private communications between institutions, government and banking.
By this afternoon, it was public knowledge that, the Federal Reserve Bank of United States had loaned money to commercial banks in Europe and probably some other countries in Asia and South America about two years ago, just about the time the whole global economy was precipitating into a free fall. The singular action by the Federal Reserve Bank brought a new dimension into the understanding of monetary integration and legal sovereignty. Commercial banks in foreign countries are known to conduct business independently with the support of their nation’s central bank, not with the central bank of other countries. However, with the step taken by the Feds to loan money to banks in foreign countries, it was becoming clear that monetary regimes are hardly as isolated as once thought; and, that a foreign commercial bank is beholden to the US Federal Reserve Bank, from that singular loan of about 50 billion dollars to say UBS, a Swiss Bank, it will be difficult to continue to ascertain national sovereignty with respect to monetary regimes. The issue of pride in national currency is probably now secondary, if the United State Federal Reserve Bank can have the back of a foreign commercial bank, in the middle of a global recession.
If most independent countries cannot continue to ascertain their nationality through management of currencies and commerce between or among financial entities within their boundaries, it hardly makes any sense to be talking about legal sovereignty. As defined by the 1999 Nobel Laureate in Economics, Robert Mundell, Legal Sovereignty refers to the ability of a state to make its own laws without limitations imposed by any other outside authority. Could the Swiss government make laws that would impinge on the decision of his central bank officials to seek fund from the US Federal Reserve Bank? Probably yes, however, the commitment of funds from the United States Central Bank may make the Swiss government think twice, considering the implication for their national economy and currency. Here lies the joker: the implication of say UBS abandoning its national currency and bank to go seek financial help from the US Federal Reserve Banks, puts a damper on the crave for legal sovereignty; it also creates a difficult environment for the assertion of national sovereignty by the Swiss.
The reality that the United States Dollars has grown up from a national currency to an international medium of exchange with the status of truly being the number one currency of international transaction, now puts into the tanker the argument of the independence of national currencies. The integration of the world’s currencies is getting to be a reality and the de-facto argument of associated national sovereignty and independent currency is gradually becoming a thing of the past. With the US Federal Reserve Bank loaning money to the Lloyds of London, the United States Dollars is virtually becoming something of a profound commodity, being sought by every financial institutions all over the globe. Citizens of the world now depend on the United States’ Currency to dictate the pace of commerce, even within boundaries of countries far remote from the United States. With the Feds loaning money out, comes the landmark concession of national sovereignty with respect to monetary policy. Does this give a bragging right to Washington DC? Probably not, considering that the nature of this type of transaction may be available on tapes, emails and documents that can be released on the WEB by Wiki Leaks, today or tomorrow!
If European commercial Banks agree to seek money from the national bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank, this choice leaves room for monetary expansion policy implication within the European Union. Further, if the Lloyds of London can draw on a short-term Bank Note from the US Federal Reserve Bank, the question of a system of fixed currency exchange rates and the central control over the British Pound by No. 10 Downing Street or the Buckingham Palace, is probably about to become history. Since Britain and United states are not known to have a joint currency, the issue of independence and sovereignty of the nation state, United Kingdom, can be readily called to question. With the singular act of the feds loaning money to European Banks, the kind of legal tender power that is often associated with independent nation’s currency can now come into play, even within those nations boundaries. Since the Swedish bank, UBS, did not seek the replacement of its nation’s currency in its deal with the US Federal Reserve Bank, the implication of its transaction may have a political under tone. here again lies the challenge that Wiki Leaks can drop on the laps of European and American politicians. No wonder, France is out with a similar warrant to the United States for the founder of Wiki Leaks!
The potential that Wiki leaks may get its hand on tapes and documents of say Bank of America and probably the UBS or any other bank out there, may actually introduce a fatal weakness into the international banking system. Imagine that during the turbulent early period of the global recession two years ago, a bank official from UBS and another from the US Federal Reserve Bank had entered into a deal that may impinge on either nation’s monetary regime, then there is obviously a concern that such information is available to a third party like Mr. Assange. The fact that Assange can then turn around and make this type of transaction available on the WEB, can actually destabilize international banking system. Further, it may have an added destruction to the independence of a nation state and its ability to have control over transactions taking place within its borders. The national security implications of the new development in the cyberspace is now a thing that is best imagined than coming to reality. If Wiki Leaks make good on its promise to release the commercial banking transactions on the WEB, you can bet, more than hell will break loose!
It is possible for countries' embassy tape discussions to be made public. It is also admissible that such communications between embassy staff may be cause for alarm by the State Department or Washington DC. However, when the real backbone of many economies are probably going to be at stake, well your imagination is as good as mine. When European Commercial Banks interest are being beholden to the U.S. national Bank, what is the sense of talking about national currencies and pride. It's all about to go into the air: puff! The notion that bank officials are incompetent or cannot manage risk, becomes secondary at this point. The embarrassments for many more national government is the issue now at stake. As we continue to watch events unfold on the WEB, I can imagine Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Paul Allen asking each other: what in the world did we let loose in New Mexico and California three decades ago?
American Foreign Relations has definitely taken a hit from the Wiki Leaks releases. The State Department is busy scrambling around to mend fences with foreign government and national security assets all over the world are probably being moved around and educated about new strategies of communication between their outpost and Washington DC. Unfortunately as one individual said early in the week, we have entered that era in which the facades are being removed from the face of the people: welcome to WEB 4.0! The collective impact of the Wiki Leaks releases on national governments and commercial bankings is probably good for those who have chosen to pursue this route for achieving fairness in the world; however, is this what we really need? I don't know, but what I realize from this new frontier, is that America must continue to look out for Americans and other nations, theirs. We are now in a time zone, where the word Armageddon, is taking a new interpretation in foreign and monetary policies implementation around the globe.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
American Foreign policy in the Age of Wiki leaks: Embassy Safety and Exchanges with Washington DC
The theatrics on communications between American Embassy Officials and Washington DC on Wiki leak cable releases are painfully tragic for many veteran foreign policy officials. Many of them, who are familiar with the risks of working in a foreign land where the environment is often unfamiliar and the language different from English, makes the wiki leaks experience, even the more tragic. Many of them contemplate the risks they take in some of those lands across the world, where the basic necessities of life are sometimes unavailable and yet, they work harder to collect useful information that are being paraded on the WEB, as if they are fashion apparels at a Paris runway dig. We may want to remind those working along with Julian Assange, that many of them have never experienced embassy bombings, first hand; and probably have not shared in the experience of losing a colleague on the job. The careless sharing of information moving from those faraway lands to Washington DC on Wiki leaks and other accompanying organizations can lead to deaths of American Embassy officials. No one working for American Embassy is immune from the risk of losing their lives, just by being traced to be working in the interest of this nation. The blog today is looking at embassy officials safety and exchanges with Washington DC, in light of the current Wiki Leaks cables on the WEB.
For those who have forgotten the Embassy bombing experience in Nairobi, Kenya, it is important to remind them that not only were Americans injured, indigenes and locals in that country lost their lives. Nearly everyone in Nairobi on the night of the embassy bombing understood the difficulties of people working for American Embassy or the difficult conditions under which foreign officials work, including the risk of losing their lives while serving the interest of America. Still men and women continue to work for Uncle Sam. We saw the unstable political arrangements in Yemen and the anger and alienation that seem to consume those people in that country over America’s influence. The potential of shattering the peace in many areas of the world is now very obvious with the releases of Wiki Leaks cables.
Today, men and women working in the interest of American Embassies all over the world are wondering if any of their information exchanges with Washington DC are going to be released by Wiki Leaks, or whether they have already been released and would cause harm to them and their families. I once tried to get into Foreign Service employment in 1998 and at the interview debriefing of what foreign embassy staff are expected to do while away from the shores of America, made me think twice, if the job is worth the pay. I am raising this point here, because of many in the press who consider that the releases of the Wiki Leak cables are issue of the freedom of the press. It is more than that. It is all bloods and sweat by dedicated Americans, who see the diplomacy of America around the globe as essential to the stability of this nation and its partners. Has anyone imagined the role of U.S. alliances to the stability of NATO members? The strategy from the White House on Foreign policy is developed from information shared from American Embassies as to the status of current events and dismissive in those NATO member countries. Imagine having such information in the open on the WEB. Is that really what this is all about?
When our Presidents stand up on the podium and say, we are going to work together with our European partners, much inputs has gone into that statement from contribution of American Embassy staff. To discountenance the implication of the Wiki Leaks on the pretext of freedom of the Press or the right of the people to know, these people are being disingenuous to the essence of America’s freedom. People should not confuse the right to know to the high stake of sharing nation’s secrets on the WEB. Imagine what flames the release of the embassy communiqué on the WEB to the delivery of food and shelter to displaced peoples in Kosovo during Clinton's era. If embassy staff in countries in Europe were not up to their snuff, would America and NATO be able to help millions of people who were wallowing in genocide or a fear of it, in that conflict region? Is the freedom of information sharing of intricate efforts made by American Embassy staff to ensure that Washington DC has the appropriate status information to be able to help in that situation; or, to be able to make pronouncements based on the issues on the ground, an inalienable right of everyone in the world? America has done so many things around the world, peacefully, based on the information that Wiki leaks is sharing today on the WEB. Does Wiki Leaks expect us to fold our hands when nations call for our help in desperate times? What then is the purpose of these senseless releases?
When our nation reaffirm strong support for democratically elected governments, the issue of security and confidence in American military and the military of some of other nations around the world, are called to bear; this is the type of information that is being shared on the WEB like college classroom homeworks and assignments. Many who doubt that Wiki Leaks cable releases undermine the essence of our government efforts to ensure the safety of America and its allies must rethink again. Were these people asleep when Milosevic refused international military presence in Kosovo at the height of his atrocities? Who provided the credible assurance to the Serbians that the world was not at war with them but with the policies of the regime in Belgrade. Some of the back room discussions and strategy of handling this very delicate circumstance drew from America’s embassies communication with Washington DC. This same information about difficult circumstances around the globe is now being made available on the WEB, thanks to Wiki Leaks. These are treacherous decisions and someone has to be held accountable, pronto!
For those who have forgotten the Embassy bombing experience in Nairobi, Kenya, it is important to remind them that not only were Americans injured, indigenes and locals in that country lost their lives. Nearly everyone in Nairobi on the night of the embassy bombing understood the difficulties of people working for American Embassy or the difficult conditions under which foreign officials work, including the risk of losing their lives while serving the interest of America. Still men and women continue to work for Uncle Sam. We saw the unstable political arrangements in Yemen and the anger and alienation that seem to consume those people in that country over America’s influence. The potential of shattering the peace in many areas of the world is now very obvious with the releases of Wiki Leaks cables.
Today, men and women working in the interest of American Embassies all over the world are wondering if any of their information exchanges with Washington DC are going to be released by Wiki Leaks, or whether they have already been released and would cause harm to them and their families. I once tried to get into Foreign Service employment in 1998 and at the interview debriefing of what foreign embassy staff are expected to do while away from the shores of America, made me think twice, if the job is worth the pay. I am raising this point here, because of many in the press who consider that the releases of the Wiki Leak cables are issue of the freedom of the press. It is more than that. It is all bloods and sweat by dedicated Americans, who see the diplomacy of America around the globe as essential to the stability of this nation and its partners. Has anyone imagined the role of U.S. alliances to the stability of NATO members? The strategy from the White House on Foreign policy is developed from information shared from American Embassies as to the status of current events and dismissive in those NATO member countries. Imagine having such information in the open on the WEB. Is that really what this is all about?
When our Presidents stand up on the podium and say, we are going to work together with our European partners, much inputs has gone into that statement from contribution of American Embassy staff. To discountenance the implication of the Wiki Leaks on the pretext of freedom of the Press or the right of the people to know, these people are being disingenuous to the essence of America’s freedom. People should not confuse the right to know to the high stake of sharing nation’s secrets on the WEB. Imagine what flames the release of the embassy communiqué on the WEB to the delivery of food and shelter to displaced peoples in Kosovo during Clinton's era. If embassy staff in countries in Europe were not up to their snuff, would America and NATO be able to help millions of people who were wallowing in genocide or a fear of it, in that conflict region? Is the freedom of information sharing of intricate efforts made by American Embassy staff to ensure that Washington DC has the appropriate status information to be able to help in that situation; or, to be able to make pronouncements based on the issues on the ground, an inalienable right of everyone in the world? America has done so many things around the world, peacefully, based on the information that Wiki leaks is sharing today on the WEB. Does Wiki Leaks expect us to fold our hands when nations call for our help in desperate times? What then is the purpose of these senseless releases?
When our nation reaffirm strong support for democratically elected governments, the issue of security and confidence in American military and the military of some of other nations around the world, are called to bear; this is the type of information that is being shared on the WEB like college classroom homeworks and assignments. Many who doubt that Wiki Leaks cable releases undermine the essence of our government efforts to ensure the safety of America and its allies must rethink again. Were these people asleep when Milosevic refused international military presence in Kosovo at the height of his atrocities? Who provided the credible assurance to the Serbians that the world was not at war with them but with the policies of the regime in Belgrade. Some of the back room discussions and strategy of handling this very delicate circumstance drew from America’s embassies communication with Washington DC. This same information about difficult circumstances around the globe is now being made available on the WEB, thanks to Wiki Leaks. These are treacherous decisions and someone has to be held accountable, pronto!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
American Foreign Policy in the Age of Wiki leaks: the new reality of the information super highway
The recent Wiki leaks’ cable releases on state department activities overseas have great implications for the future of American Foreign policy. Our visions of people, living far away from us are usually not the same as those in our neighborhood. If foreign head of states and our diplomats cannot share information without looking over their shoulders, it will be more than difficult to resolve many differences in the world peacefully, with equal dignity for nations involved. Imagine if wiki leaks had revealed State Department dispatches over Kosovo, maybe we would not have been able to help reverse the ethnic cleansing dilemma that nearly wiped out a generation of people in that part of Europe.
How can our nation make connective links with other nations far away from us, if our representatives are unable to brief our President on the appropriate choice of words to use when our President or his representative meets other heads of states or their representatives? Imagine using the word “Cheers” when meeting a Hungarian President in a diplomatic conversation? How can our President formulate future better relations with Europeans, Africans, Asians or Arab nations, if their representatives and leaders cannot share information in confidence without it ending up on the WEB. For example, the current releases of Wiki leak cables of diplomat’s comments on some issues are at the hearts of current and ongoing negotiations of diplomatic issues, issues that may derail acceptability of difficult reconciliation on an issue as two state solutions for Israel and Palestine never ending debacle. Maybe that is why some people have referred to the current serials of releases from Wiki leaks as the September 11 Armageddon of foreign policy; my wife prefers to see it as a new frontier of a changing world, where advances in information technology may be driving foreign diplomacy or turning the world of foreign diplomacy upside down. How can we create a balance among the right of the people to know, the first amendment and what is often done under the auspices of old glory in many countries around the globe?
First, the right of people to know may not and should never thumb our national interest. Once we subscribe to the contrary, political leadership, either from the Presidency or from the congress, is probably jeopardized. The very insensible right of the people to know in the face of the overall interest of the nation’s security can hardly be a subject of debate in the current world environment. The world today is not what we had in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s. If suicide bombers or mass murderers are going to be held accountable for their actions, the release of confidential state department’s missive that may circumvent the very fundamental foundation of freedom cannot be tolerated by any responsible democratic government. This is not to say that the public does not have the right to know what is done in their name; rather, it is the argument that, it isn’t in all cases that the people’s right to know must thumb our national interest. While the first amendment guarantees the right of the press, it hardly opens that right to the ruining chances of the state. The collective right of the people will sometimes erode the right of the individual to know, if the safety of the people is to be guaranteed.
Second, before we get into the issue of what essentially has been released so far by Wiki leaks and what arrangements had been entered into by the Guardian Newspapers of UK, New York Times, De Spiegel of Germany and any other media outlet that is either releasing or sharing information on private communications between representative of our government and other governments all over the world, it may be important for us to raise our overwhelming interest to ensure that whatever information that is released or discussed does not result in the deaths of anyone, a condition that cannot be totally guaranteed. Now, if all the media that are insisting that the right of the people to know thumbs national security, can anyone of these media sources prevent subsequent political hostilities against American diplomats attempting to do their everyday work all over the world? The concentrating of some state department’s assets all over the world is an issue that must receive the attention of those clamoring for the right to know legacy; hardly can any of these media sources, including wiki leaks, guarantee that a CIA agent in the street of Kabul, Afghanistan, will not lose his life from probable causes associated with the releases of these Wiki leaks cables. Thus, if no one can guarantee that the interest of the state will not be abridged on these releases, it behooves the State to go after Wiki leaks, whether in Norway or within our known borders of operations.
Third, going by the apprehension across borders regarding the implication of the Wiki leaks cable releases, it is possible that some nations and their governments will be willing to work with us to streamline this issue. I understand that some freedom of the press and speech apostles would cry foul at my making of this assessment; however, the question is: Is there any nation in the World that has suffered the humiliation of having what is sometimes considered as national secret exposed all over the WEB? Our nation is the only one that is currently suffering this humiliation and much as I appreciate the importance and relevance of sharing information and the people’s right to know, releases going on by Wiki leaks has crossed the line. Much as I admire what Wiki leaks may be attempting to accomplish, it is hard for me to subscribe to their choice at this time, knowing full well that none of those in the Press can guarantee that lives of people will not be in jeopardy. I have heard from some of their spokesperson indicating that they took all possible precautions by blacking out some names of people whose lives may be in jeopardy, but the real truth is: no one is safe, if all of us are in jeopardy. Parading substantial information on the WEB on American Diplomatic moves opens up the chances that anyone in a clandestine community somewhere in the world can really find out the direct source of information shared with American diplomats after reading the Wiki leaks cables, despite the fact that they (the press and wiki leaks) have promised that they wiped out the names of people whose lives may be in jeopardy before the releases.
Fourth, a month or two ago, President Obama was unable to tie the nut with the Asian countries on the subject of trade with Korea and Currency manipulation with China. Many people in foreign service, including some astute foreign diplomats from the East and West indicated that this was a loss for this nation. The vision of our nation regarding bilateral economic negotiations could have been jeopardized because these two Asian countries were aware of our strategic offering because some of the important information that may have cornered these nations into an agreement have been shared by the very unscrupulous people who have been able to get hold of diplomatic communications from our embassies in China and Korea. Just before Congress went on thanksgiving recess, the START II Treaty that was subscribed to by virtually all the Secretaries of State that has served this nation in the past two decades is not subjected to some estranged questioning by Republicans? Is there other information that these, OBAMA-on-term crusaders have that, the Presidency does not have that is making republicans attempt to score cheap points on this foreign relation issue? You may say I am being paranoid, but in politics, you can hardly trust the enemy?
How can you share strategic partnerships, when information to deal with North Korea’s dangerous nuclear weapons programs is easily available on the WEB? Our nation’s clarion call for some stability in the Korean peninsula is based on some strategic diplomacy, foundation of which would have been based on some communication between the state department and our embassies around the world, including South Korea. If information shared by South Korean government in privacy with our diplomats in Korea is readily available on the WEB, courtesy of Wiki leaks, how can we guarantee that there wouldn’t be more threats and attempt to blackmail from North Korea despite our recent effort to show that we are in support of the national security of South Korea? It is well past time to be leaving our embassies communication on a not so secured WEB! If any American is caught involved in this mess, they should be tried for treasonable felony.
We must take the present Wiki leaks as an affront on our state. We cannot guarantee the peace around several states in the world, if our communications with them are out there for everyone to see. How can you broker peace when your strategy is widespread in the news? How can you transform societies that are on the brink of genocide when you cannot ensure that the information shared with you is sacrosanct? We are pursuing many goals on several front around the world, and much as some nations and peoples around the world may criticize us as we do so, none of this nation had helped out to stop the NAZIS in the Second World War, except for a few and in our current fight against Jihad extremism. No one is standing in the shores of Uncle Sam, so no one of these people at Wiki leaks or the press understands fully where the shoes are pinching!
Fifth, after this storm of wiki leaks, we better appreciate the endless possibility of the information highway. The State Department had better re-evaluate the extraordinary impact that information sharing on the WEB may have on how representatives of American interests in foreign embassies around the world shift information from their respective bases in and out. There is a need for a new paradigm; not only can the short listing of how many people see what information regarding the security of this nation, make a difference; however, it is probably essential to teach foreign officers, coding and information sharing ethics that will not compromise the nation’s security.
Finally, there are going to be times that a visiting head of state to Washington DC does not see eye-to-eye on urgent issues, issues in which sitting down for a real heart-to-heart conversations is necessary for resolving a difficult issue. It is important that American Embassy in the home country of the visiting head of state is able to dispatch cogent information to Washington DC to help the nation or policy makers formulate a positing or a point that will be amendable and consistent with America’s interest. If such information from the home country of the visiting head of state is already released by wiki leaks or any other online information sharing portal, then foreign policies will be more challenging than ever before. Before I say Jack rabbit, there is another head of state visiting next week and I believe he or she will not appreciate that all his or her communication with the White house is coming upstream on the WEB!
The blog today starts discussing the challenges ahead for American Foreign policy in the age of Wiki leak cable releases
N.B.
This is the greatest nation in the world with a population of over three hundred million. You cannot trust all those people within a nation to do all that is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. For this and other reasons, precautions have to be taken in light of the current experience with Wiki leaks. Simple issues as leaking important communications between state department officials and Washington DC will turn out to have profound impact on how America takes positions and on new direction of choices that may reverberate into other national interest. We cannot be looking away as our trust as a nation is being abridged while concentrating on ridiculous alignment to kick out a President that is doing all in his power to do the people's work. It is time for the Republicans to wake up to their responsibility to the people, work with Obama to provide employment to the people, feed the helpless and leave alone those who have too much in their bank accounts to care whether you give them a tax cut or not!
How can our nation make connective links with other nations far away from us, if our representatives are unable to brief our President on the appropriate choice of words to use when our President or his representative meets other heads of states or their representatives? Imagine using the word “Cheers” when meeting a Hungarian President in a diplomatic conversation? How can our President formulate future better relations with Europeans, Africans, Asians or Arab nations, if their representatives and leaders cannot share information in confidence without it ending up on the WEB. For example, the current releases of Wiki leak cables of diplomat’s comments on some issues are at the hearts of current and ongoing negotiations of diplomatic issues, issues that may derail acceptability of difficult reconciliation on an issue as two state solutions for Israel and Palestine never ending debacle. Maybe that is why some people have referred to the current serials of releases from Wiki leaks as the September 11 Armageddon of foreign policy; my wife prefers to see it as a new frontier of a changing world, where advances in information technology may be driving foreign diplomacy or turning the world of foreign diplomacy upside down. How can we create a balance among the right of the people to know, the first amendment and what is often done under the auspices of old glory in many countries around the globe?
First, the right of people to know may not and should never thumb our national interest. Once we subscribe to the contrary, political leadership, either from the Presidency or from the congress, is probably jeopardized. The very insensible right of the people to know in the face of the overall interest of the nation’s security can hardly be a subject of debate in the current world environment. The world today is not what we had in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s. If suicide bombers or mass murderers are going to be held accountable for their actions, the release of confidential state department’s missive that may circumvent the very fundamental foundation of freedom cannot be tolerated by any responsible democratic government. This is not to say that the public does not have the right to know what is done in their name; rather, it is the argument that, it isn’t in all cases that the people’s right to know must thumb our national interest. While the first amendment guarantees the right of the press, it hardly opens that right to the ruining chances of the state. The collective right of the people will sometimes erode the right of the individual to know, if the safety of the people is to be guaranteed.
Second, before we get into the issue of what essentially has been released so far by Wiki leaks and what arrangements had been entered into by the Guardian Newspapers of UK, New York Times, De Spiegel of Germany and any other media outlet that is either releasing or sharing information on private communications between representative of our government and other governments all over the world, it may be important for us to raise our overwhelming interest to ensure that whatever information that is released or discussed does not result in the deaths of anyone, a condition that cannot be totally guaranteed. Now, if all the media that are insisting that the right of the people to know thumbs national security, can anyone of these media sources prevent subsequent political hostilities against American diplomats attempting to do their everyday work all over the world? The concentrating of some state department’s assets all over the world is an issue that must receive the attention of those clamoring for the right to know legacy; hardly can any of these media sources, including wiki leaks, guarantee that a CIA agent in the street of Kabul, Afghanistan, will not lose his life from probable causes associated with the releases of these Wiki leaks cables. Thus, if no one can guarantee that the interest of the state will not be abridged on these releases, it behooves the State to go after Wiki leaks, whether in Norway or within our known borders of operations.
Third, going by the apprehension across borders regarding the implication of the Wiki leaks cable releases, it is possible that some nations and their governments will be willing to work with us to streamline this issue. I understand that some freedom of the press and speech apostles would cry foul at my making of this assessment; however, the question is: Is there any nation in the World that has suffered the humiliation of having what is sometimes considered as national secret exposed all over the WEB? Our nation is the only one that is currently suffering this humiliation and much as I appreciate the importance and relevance of sharing information and the people’s right to know, releases going on by Wiki leaks has crossed the line. Much as I admire what Wiki leaks may be attempting to accomplish, it is hard for me to subscribe to their choice at this time, knowing full well that none of those in the Press can guarantee that lives of people will not be in jeopardy. I have heard from some of their spokesperson indicating that they took all possible precautions by blacking out some names of people whose lives may be in jeopardy, but the real truth is: no one is safe, if all of us are in jeopardy. Parading substantial information on the WEB on American Diplomatic moves opens up the chances that anyone in a clandestine community somewhere in the world can really find out the direct source of information shared with American diplomats after reading the Wiki leaks cables, despite the fact that they (the press and wiki leaks) have promised that they wiped out the names of people whose lives may be in jeopardy before the releases.
Fourth, a month or two ago, President Obama was unable to tie the nut with the Asian countries on the subject of trade with Korea and Currency manipulation with China. Many people in foreign service, including some astute foreign diplomats from the East and West indicated that this was a loss for this nation. The vision of our nation regarding bilateral economic negotiations could have been jeopardized because these two Asian countries were aware of our strategic offering because some of the important information that may have cornered these nations into an agreement have been shared by the very unscrupulous people who have been able to get hold of diplomatic communications from our embassies in China and Korea. Just before Congress went on thanksgiving recess, the START II Treaty that was subscribed to by virtually all the Secretaries of State that has served this nation in the past two decades is not subjected to some estranged questioning by Republicans? Is there other information that these, OBAMA-on-term crusaders have that, the Presidency does not have that is making republicans attempt to score cheap points on this foreign relation issue? You may say I am being paranoid, but in politics, you can hardly trust the enemy?
How can you share strategic partnerships, when information to deal with North Korea’s dangerous nuclear weapons programs is easily available on the WEB? Our nation’s clarion call for some stability in the Korean peninsula is based on some strategic diplomacy, foundation of which would have been based on some communication between the state department and our embassies around the world, including South Korea. If information shared by South Korean government in privacy with our diplomats in Korea is readily available on the WEB, courtesy of Wiki leaks, how can we guarantee that there wouldn’t be more threats and attempt to blackmail from North Korea despite our recent effort to show that we are in support of the national security of South Korea? It is well past time to be leaving our embassies communication on a not so secured WEB! If any American is caught involved in this mess, they should be tried for treasonable felony.
We must take the present Wiki leaks as an affront on our state. We cannot guarantee the peace around several states in the world, if our communications with them are out there for everyone to see. How can you broker peace when your strategy is widespread in the news? How can you transform societies that are on the brink of genocide when you cannot ensure that the information shared with you is sacrosanct? We are pursuing many goals on several front around the world, and much as some nations and peoples around the world may criticize us as we do so, none of this nation had helped out to stop the NAZIS in the Second World War, except for a few and in our current fight against Jihad extremism. No one is standing in the shores of Uncle Sam, so no one of these people at Wiki leaks or the press understands fully where the shoes are pinching!
Fifth, after this storm of wiki leaks, we better appreciate the endless possibility of the information highway. The State Department had better re-evaluate the extraordinary impact that information sharing on the WEB may have on how representatives of American interests in foreign embassies around the world shift information from their respective bases in and out. There is a need for a new paradigm; not only can the short listing of how many people see what information regarding the security of this nation, make a difference; however, it is probably essential to teach foreign officers, coding and information sharing ethics that will not compromise the nation’s security.
Finally, there are going to be times that a visiting head of state to Washington DC does not see eye-to-eye on urgent issues, issues in which sitting down for a real heart-to-heart conversations is necessary for resolving a difficult issue. It is important that American Embassy in the home country of the visiting head of state is able to dispatch cogent information to Washington DC to help the nation or policy makers formulate a positing or a point that will be amendable and consistent with America’s interest. If such information from the home country of the visiting head of state is already released by wiki leaks or any other online information sharing portal, then foreign policies will be more challenging than ever before. Before I say Jack rabbit, there is another head of state visiting next week and I believe he or she will not appreciate that all his or her communication with the White house is coming upstream on the WEB!
The blog today starts discussing the challenges ahead for American Foreign policy in the age of Wiki leak cable releases
N.B.
This is the greatest nation in the world with a population of over three hundred million. You cannot trust all those people within a nation to do all that is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. For this and other reasons, precautions have to be taken in light of the current experience with Wiki leaks. Simple issues as leaking important communications between state department officials and Washington DC will turn out to have profound impact on how America takes positions and on new direction of choices that may reverberate into other national interest. We cannot be looking away as our trust as a nation is being abridged while concentrating on ridiculous alignment to kick out a President that is doing all in his power to do the people's work. It is time for the Republicans to wake up to their responsibility to the people, work with Obama to provide employment to the people, feed the helpless and leave alone those who have too much in their bank accounts to care whether you give them a tax cut or not!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)