Diplomatic Secrets
The WikiLeaks documents won’t surprise anybody but naïve souls who believe international relations, especially as conducted by the US, are based on altruism and honesty. Of course, it could be embarrassing for any foreign leaders named as informants, or “plants” secretly pursuing US policy goals. But then, double-dealing always involves risk, doesn’t it?
I recall the release of Philip Agee’s Inside the Company: CIA Diary in the mid-seventies. The “renegade” operative didn’t detail just his role in fighting movements for social change in Latin America from 1960 to ’72. He named names: every CIA officer, operative and agent of which he had knowledge. There were leaders of governments, political parties (including Communist and other left parties) and labor unions. Journalists, military officers and police and security officials were also named.
In fact, Agee’s book included a 25-page appendix listing in alphabetical order all “individuals who were employees, agents, liaison contacts or were otherwise used by or involved with the CIA or its operations; and of organizations financed, influenced or controlled by the CIA….”
If I recall there were some casualties. The current situation, however, is different. I’m sure everybody in the Pakistani government knows exactly how each of them is viewed by the State Dept. And I doubt that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has any illusions about the king of Saudi Arabia’s opinion of the Islamic Republic. The worst that could happen is that some US toadies lose their privileged positions.
The biggest affront to bourgeois diplomacy was probably the 1918 release of the secret treaties found by the Bolsheviks in the archives of the recently-overthrown Tsar’s foreign ministry. The Russian Empire had been allied in World War I with England and France (later joined by the US). The promise to extract Russia from the war - which had been a disaster for the country - was one of two big reasons (the other, land reform) for the Bolshevik victory in the revolution a few months earlier.
Denounced by the Entente powers for abandoning the “war to make the world safe for democracy,” the Bolsheviks retaliated with the treaties, showing what the war was really about.
One treaty showed that Russia had entered the war upon France and England’s promise that after victory, it could help itself to territories in Persia (Iran), the Austrian-ruled Balkans, and Turkey (including the Dardanelles).
Another treaty published had a more lasting effect, right down to today: the “Sykes-Picot Agreement.” Although not affecting Russia, the Tsar had a copy of it; it called for a postwar division of presently Turkish-ruled territories: Palestine, Transjordan (Jordan) and Iraq to England; Syria and Lebanon to France.
It was a problem for England especially because it was then arming and equipping an Arab rebellion (led by Englishman T. E. Lawrence - “Lawrence of Arabia”) against the Turks. The Arabs thought they were fighting for an independent and unified state. Luckily for the English, the war was just about won at the time. And they did put through the planned division, bequeathing to us the unhappy Mideast.
When the Bolsheviks published those treaties, it looked like an international movement just might arise and put the treaty-makers out of business. Didn’t happen, of course. But if the WikiLeaks people, and others, manage to keep getting out the truth, maybe…
I recall the release of Philip Agee’s Inside the Company: CIA Diary in the mid-seventies. The “renegade” operative didn’t detail just his role in fighting movements for social change in Latin America from 1960 to ’72. He named names: every CIA officer, operative and agent of which he had knowledge. There were leaders of governments, political parties (including Communist and other left parties) and labor unions. Journalists, military officers and police and security officials were also named.
In fact, Agee’s book included a 25-page appendix listing in alphabetical order all “individuals who were employees, agents, liaison contacts or were otherwise used by or involved with the CIA or its operations; and of organizations financed, influenced or controlled by the CIA….”
If I recall there were some casualties. The current situation, however, is different. I’m sure everybody in the Pakistani government knows exactly how each of them is viewed by the State Dept. And I doubt that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has any illusions about the king of Saudi Arabia’s opinion of the Islamic Republic. The worst that could happen is that some US toadies lose their privileged positions.
The biggest affront to bourgeois diplomacy was probably the 1918 release of the secret treaties found by the Bolsheviks in the archives of the recently-overthrown Tsar’s foreign ministry. The Russian Empire had been allied in World War I with England and France (later joined by the US). The promise to extract Russia from the war - which had been a disaster for the country - was one of two big reasons (the other, land reform) for the Bolshevik victory in the revolution a few months earlier.
Denounced by the Entente powers for abandoning the “war to make the world safe for democracy,” the Bolsheviks retaliated with the treaties, showing what the war was really about.
One treaty showed that Russia had entered the war upon France and England’s promise that after victory, it could help itself to territories in Persia (Iran), the Austrian-ruled Balkans, and Turkey (including the Dardanelles).
Another treaty published had a more lasting effect, right down to today: the “Sykes-Picot Agreement.” Although not affecting Russia, the Tsar had a copy of it; it called for a postwar division of presently Turkish-ruled territories: Palestine, Transjordan (Jordan) and Iraq to England; Syria and Lebanon to France.
It was a problem for England especially because it was then arming and equipping an Arab rebellion (led by Englishman T. E. Lawrence - “Lawrence of Arabia”) against the Turks. The Arabs thought they were fighting for an independent and unified state. Luckily for the English, the war was just about won at the time. And they did put through the planned division, bequeathing to us the unhappy Mideast.
When the Bolsheviks published those treaties, it looked like an international movement just might arise and put the treaty-makers out of business. Didn’t happen, of course. But if the WikiLeaks people, and others, manage to keep getting out the truth, maybe…