On Monday, The Lede is tracking global reaction to the leak of American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowers’ Web site. (See our previous post for coverage of the reaction on Sunday.)
The New York Times will be publishing articles on the documents and about 100 of the cables this week, as part of a series called State’s Secrets. More articles and highlights from the secret archive are being published by four European news organizations — the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El País — which, like The Times, had access to the documents before they were made public.
In “A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents,” the editors of The Times explain that the archive contains more than 250,000 American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, which reveal “the daily traffic between the State Department and more than 270 diplomatic outposts around the world.”
4:29 P.M. New Articles on Cables About North Korea and Guantánamo
Two new articles on the cables have just been published by The Times. My colleague David Sanger reports on the discussion among American diplomats about what might happen in North Korea after the death of Kim Jong-il, the country’s ailing leader. My colleagues Charlie Savage and Andrew Lehren report that a cache of cables on the work of American officials charged with finding homes for detainees held at Guantánamo disclose “a global bazaar of sorts,” in which they “sweet-talked and haggled with foreign counterparts in efforts to resettle detainees who were cleared for release but could not be repatriated for fear of mistreatment.”
4:14 P.M. Guardian Publishes Cable Reporting Remarks by Prince Andrew
Among the new cables published on Monday by the Guardian is one from an American diplomat who detailed remarks by a member of the British royal family, Prince Andrew, during a brunch meeting in 2008 in Kyrgyzstan. According to the cable from Tatiana Gfoeller, the American ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, the prince, “railed at British anti-corruption investigators,” and journalists from the Guardian, apparently for looking closely at overseas dealings of British companies.
In a comment at the end of the cable, the ambassador wrote:
Prince Andrew reached out to the Ambassador with cordiality and respect, evidently valuing her insights. However, he reacted with almost neuralgic patriotism whenever any comparison between the United States and United Kingdom came up. For example, one British businessman noted that despite the “overwhelming might of the American economy compared to ours” the amount of American and British investment in Kyrgyzstan was similar. Snapped the Duke: “No surprise there. The Americans don’t understand geography. Never have. In the U.K., we have the best geography teachers in the world!”
4:05 P.M. Statement by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan
America’s ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry, knows something about leaked diplomatic cables. Two of his urgent messages to Washington were leaked last November and published in full by The New York Times, detailing his objections to the counterinsurgency strategy offered by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who was then the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
On Monday, Mr. Eikenberry, a retired Army lieutenant general who was once, himself, the top American commander in Afghanistan, posted a statement on his embassy’s Web site decrying the publication of the cables obtained by WikiLeaks. Mr. Eikenberry argued:
Whatever WikiLeaks’ motives are in publishing these documents, releasing them poses real risks to real people. We deeply regret the disclosure of information that was intended to be confidential. And we condemn it. For our part, the United States Government is committed to maintaining the security of our diplomatic communications and is taking steps to make sure they are kept in confidence. We are moving aggressively to make sure this kind of breach does not happen again….When it comes to Afghanistan, our policy has been made clear by President Obama in his speech on December 1, 2009 at West Point and again at the NATO Lisbon Summit just a few days ago. The United States is absolutely committed to building and strengthening a long-term partnership with the Afghan people and the Afghan Government. Our shared goals do not change based on the release of purported diplomatic reporting from the past.Secretary Clinton and I have spoken with President Karzai and we are all committed, along with President Obama, to looking forward and focusing on those issues that are key to the success of the Afghan people and the security of the American people.
3:51 P.M. Wikipedia v. WikiLeaks
One of the co-founders of Wikipedia has made a serious effort to distance himself from WikiLeaks. Writing on Twitter, Larry Sanger directed the following pointed message to the whistle-blowers’ site:
3:27 P.M. Explaining the Decision to Publish
Readers who want to know more about the decision by The Times, and the other four news organizations, to publish articles on these leaked documents might be interested in reading today’s Talk to The Times feature, “Answers to Readers’ Questions About State’s Secrets.”
The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, also fielded questions earlier today, and explained some of his thinking in a Guardian video report published on Sunday.
Javier Moreno of El País also delivered his argument in a video message to readers posted on the newspaper’s Web site.
Le Monde’s executive editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, spelled out her reasons for publishing some of the documents on Sunday.
The editors of Der Spiegel made their case implicitly in a discussion of the importance of the material posted on their Web site, in German and English.
3:10 P.M. Al Jazeera Focuses on Europe, Not Middle East
As several commentators, including the Cairo-based blogger Issandr El Amrani, noted on Sunday, records of conversations between American diplomats and Arab leaders in the leaked cables could give readers in the Middle East an unusual glimpse of what their rulers say in private.
In that regard, it is interesting that this report from Al Jazeera’s English-language channel focuses purely on what the American diplomats had to say about European leaders, not Arab leaders:
The report also includes an interview with a former British ambassador to the United States, Christopher Meyer, who told the BBC on Monday that the cables revealed so far would cause, “more embarrassment than damage, although there is damage.”
In the same vein, it is hard not to notice that a report on the leak in the Saudi Gazette makes no mention of the cables that document conversations like one between Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah and the White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan.
2:22 P.M. Video of Remarks on the Leaks by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Apologies for the slow pace of updates so far today: we were experiencing technical difficulties which I am reliably informed have now come to an end. Earlier this afternoon in Washington, as my colleague David Goodman reports, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference that the United States “deeply regrets” the “alleged leaks” of State Department cables, calling the release of any government information meant to be confidential an attack on both the United States and the entire international community.
Video of Mrs. Clinton’s entire statement was posted online by the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton argued that diplomatic communications do not represent the perspective of the American government, saying, “Our official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington.”
In her remarks, she also echoed the thoughts of America’s ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, who argued in an article published in Pakistani newspapers on Monday, “relations between governments aren’t the only concern. U.S. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders, and others outside the government who offer their own candid insights. These conversations depend on trust and confidence as well. If an anti-corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person’s identity could have serious repercussions: imprisonment, torture, even death.”
12:07 P.M. Kremlin Silent on ‘Batman and Robin’ Analogy
My colleague Ellen Barry reports from Moscow:
By mid-day on Monday, roughly a dozen Russia-related cables were public, along with several pungent phrases that were quoted repeatedly in the Russian press, like a description of President Dmitri A. Medvedev “playing Robin” to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin’s “Batman.”The Kremlin’s response was exceedingly cool. Early on Monday, Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, told the Interfax news service that he would respond to the cables only after seeing the original text, analyzing “the translation of certain words and expressions,” and determining whether they actually referred to Mr. Putin.Natalya Timakova, Mr. Medvedev’s spokeswoman, was even less forthcoming, telling journalists that the Kremlin “has not found anything interesting or deserving of comment in the materials.” Asked about the Batman and Robin analogy, she remarked that “fictional Hollywood characters hardly need to be commented on.”It was clear, however, that the leaks had reinvigorated arguments against engaging with the West.Gennadi A. Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, said the Kremlin should “draw far-reaching conclusions from the scandalous leaks.” And hard-liners began to sketch out conspiracies – speculating that hawks in the Pentagon had leaked the documents to discredit President Barack Obama, or that the cables were fakes cooked up to mislead foreign governments.“Such information can be received first-hand only,” said Mikhail Kapura, a member of the upper house of parliament, told Interfax. “I do not doubt close contacts between WikiLeaks and U.S. security services.”
11:57 A.M. Monday Morning’s Reaction
We have been experiencing some technical problems, but here is a recap of some of the reaction to the release of the diplomatic cables so far on Monday.
• The Reaction From Turkey
The first batch of documents posted online by WikiLeaks included this analysis from the American Embassy in Ankara of Turkey’s changing foreign policy in parts of the Middle East and the Balkans that were part of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. As a chart on the Guardian’s Web siteshowing where the cables were sent from indicates, the largest number of overseas messages in the trove came from the U.S. Embassy in Turkey.
My colleague Sebnem Arsu reports from Turkey:
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the leaked documents “suspicious,” but refused to comment on their substance. According to the semi-official Anatolian News Agency, Mr. Erdogan said that Turkey will “wait until WikiLeaks spill all the beans,” before evaluating the seriousness of the revelations, “because the seriousness of Wikipedia is doubtful.”Cables sent in 2007 described Mr. Erdogan as a reformist leader with autocratic tendencies but no apparent intention of establishing a fundamentalist Islamic government.Several other cables discussed international business deals involving Mr. Erdogan’s family and friends, including a pipeline project between Turkey and Iran.The Turkish newspaper Taraf reported that American diplomats wrote that they considered Ahmet Davuoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, to be dangerous because of his desire to avenge Ottoman losses.
The January 2010 cable sent to Washington on Turkey’s evolving foreign policy does mention that the country’s foreign minister has embraced the idea of a “neo-Ottoman” foreign policy. The cable reads:
Rather than deny, Davutoglu has embraced this accusation. Himself the grandson of an Ottoman soldier who fought in Gaza, Davutoglu summed up the [government's] philosophy in an extraordinary speech in Sarajevo in late 2009. His thesis: the Balkans, Caucasus, and Middle East were all better off when under Ottoman control or influence; peace and progress prevailed. Alas the region has been ravaged by division and war ever since. (He was too clever to explicitly blame all that on the imperialist western powers, but came close). However, now Turkey is back, ready to lead — or even unite. (Davutoglu: “We will re-establish this (Ottoman) Balkan”).¶8. (C) While this speech was given in the Balkans, most of its impact is in the Middle East. Davutoglu’s theory is that most of the regimes there are both undemocratic and illegitimate. Turkey, building on the alleged admiration among Middle Eastern populations for its economic success and power, and willing to stand up for the interests of the people, reaches over the regimes to the “Arab street.” Turkey’s excoriating the Israelis over Gaza, culminating in the insulting treatment of President Peres by Erdogan at Davos in 2009, illustrates this trend.
• Ahamdinejad Claims U.S. Released Cables as Part of Plot
Asked about the leaked American cables — some of which frankly reveal the enmity of Arab leaders for Iran — Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told reporters in Tehran, “let me first correct you. The material was not leaked, but rather released in an organized way,” Iran’s state-run Press TV reported.
As my colleagues William Yong and Alan Cowell add:
Mr. Ahmadinejad said at a news conference on Monday that Iran’s relations with its neighbors would not be damaged by the reports.“Regional countries are all friends with each other. Such mischief will have no impact on the relations of countries,” he said, according to Reuters.“Some part of the American government produced these documents,” he said. “We don’t think this information was leaked. We think it was organized to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals.”
According to Press TV, Mr. Ahmadinejad also said the cables, “have no legal value and will not have the political effect they seek. He also called the documents released by WikiLeaks a “game,” adding that they are “not worth commenting upon and that no one would waste their time reviewing them.”
That seems to provide an answer to how Tehran would react to the disclosure of information that the leaders of several Arab countries had encouraged the United States to take action to stop its nuclear program. Speaking of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, for instance, is quoted in the documents urging Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time.
• A Threat to Diplomatic Relations, France Says
The French government joined others in condemning the disclosure of diplomatic documents. Paris would stand with the United States and against the publication, which threaten “democratic sovereignty and authority,” François Baroin, a government spokesman, said on Monday and Le Mondereported.
• Leaks Are ‘Unhelpful,’ Iraq Foreign Minister Says
Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, called the leaks “unhelpful and untimely” but told Agence France-Presse that he had not seen specific cables released by Wikileaks.
Mr. Zebari worried on Monday that the revelations would damage the fragile government that is coming together in Iraq. “We are going through a critical time, trying to form the long-awaited government,” he said. “We hope it will not poison the overall atmosphere among Iraqi politicians and Iraqi leaders.”
• Karzai Spokesman Says Leaks Won’t Hurt Relations
A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said on Monday that the leaks of diplomatic documents, including those calling Mr. Karzai “extremely weak,” would not damage relations between the United States and Afghanistan, Reuters reported.
“There is not much in the documents to surprise us and we don’t see anything substantive that will strain our relationship, but there is more still to come,” said Waheed Omer.
“It won’t have a noticeable effect on our broader strategic relationship with the U.S.”
• Senator Lieberman Calls on U.S. to Shut WikiLeaks
Joseph Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, issued a statement on Sunday condemning WikiLeaks and its decision to release more than 250,000 secret diplomatic cables. In his statement, he urged the Obama administration and other governments to use “all legal means” to shut down WikiLeaks.
By disseminating these materials, WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world. It is an outrageous, reckless, and despicable action that will undermine the ability of our government and our partners to keep our people safe and to work together to defend our vital interests. Let there be no doubt: the individuals responsible are going to have blood on their hands. I stand in full support of the Obama Administration’s condemnation of WikiLeaks for these disclosures. I also urge the Obama Administration — both on its own and in cooperation with other responsible governments around the world — to use all legal means necessary to shut down WikiLeaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables.
Read the full release on Mr. Lieberman’s Web site.
On Sunday, the senator also tweeted:
WikiLeaks’ deliberate disclosure of these diplomatic cables is nothing less than an attack on our national security.
• Reaction in Pakistan to Disclosures
Monday’s edition of The News, a leading Pakistani newspaper, includes an essay by Cameron Munter, America’s new ambassador to Pakistan, headlined simply “Wikileaks.” Writing on Twitter, Nick Schifrin, an ABC News correspondent, calls Mr. Munter’s opinion piece, “Part attack, part apology.”
The ambassador writes, in part:
Pakistan is an important strategic partner of the United States. Of course, even a solid relationship will have its ups and downs. We have seen that in the past few days, when documents purportedly downloaded from U.S. Defense Department computers became the subject of reports in the media. They appear to contain our diplomats’ assessments of policies, negotiations, and leaders from countries around the world as well as reports on private conversations with people inside and outside other governments.I cannot vouch for the authenticity of any one of these documents. But I can say that the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential. And we condemn it. Diplomats must engage in frank discussions with their colleagues, and they must be assured that these discussions will remain private.Honest dialogue – within governments and between them – is part of the basic bargain of international relations; we couldn’t maintain peace, security, and international stability without it. I’m sure that Pakistan’s ambassadors to the United States would say the same thing. They too depend on being able to exchange honest opinions with their counterparts in Washington and send home their assessments of America’s leaders, policies, and actions….But relations between governments aren’t the only concern. U.S. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders, and others outside the government who offer their own candid insights. These conversations depend on trust and confidence as well. If an anti-corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person’s identity could have serious repercussions: imprisonment, torture, even death.The owners of the WikiLeaks Web site claim to possess some 250,000 classified documents, many of which have been released to the media. Whatever their motives are in publishing these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people, and often to particular people who have dedicated their lives to protecting others. An act intended to provoke the powerful may instead imperil the powerless. We support and are willing to have genuine debates about pressing questions of public policy. But releasing documents carelessly and without regard for the consequences is not the way to start such a debate.
My colleague Salman Masood reports from Islamabad on the reaction in the Pakistani press:
Local television news networks late Sunday night prominently highlighted a cable released by WikiLeaks that mentioned the Saudi King’s damning assessment of Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari.On Monday morning, leading newspapers ran front-page coverage of the WikiLeaks documents. The News, a center-right newspaper that is critical of the current government, had a lead headline, “Zardari greatest obstacle to Pak progress: King Abdullah.” That was a reference to the King’s assertion that Mr. Zardari was an obstacle to Pakistan’s progress. “When the head is rotten,” the king was quoted as saying, “it affects the whole body.”The News article said, “The scathing remarks by the Saudi King explain why relations between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have remained cool and almost frozen during the current rule of the Pakistan Peoples’ Party.”The News and Jang, the daily in the national Urdu language, carried an opinion article by Cameron Munter, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, that seemed aimed at damage control. Ambassador Munter wrote that he condemned the leaks and stressed that diplomats must engage in frank discussions with their colleagues. Terming Pakistan as an “important strategic partner of the United States,” Ambassador Munter stated that “even a solid relationship will have its ups and downs.”Dawn, considered the country’s leading English daily, had a lead headline “US trying to remove enriched Pak uranium: WikiLeaks.” That was a reaction to the revelation that since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret and unsuccessful effort to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device.The Express Tribune, a Karachi-based English daily newspaper, headlined its lead article: “WikiLeaks shatters American diplomacy”.Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani foreign minister, was quoted as saying that a response would be issued after a detailed reading of the leaked dispatches.
