reflectivepundit

WikiLeaks’ Dangerous Game

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Don’t believe that the leaked documents that WikiLeaks and several news organizations started to publicize this week will not have very negative consequences for U.S. national security.  Already, the first batch of these cables suggests precisely that.

I do not merely talk about the chilled diplomatic relations and eroded trust.

Rather, I ponder the consequences of specific leaks, mostly the revelation that those leaks may have killed any hopes for the U.S. to remove highly enriched uranium from Pakistan as agreed upon three years or so.

If the U.S. had ever a chance to remove a stockpile of that uranium from Pakistan, as agreed to three years or so ago, the WikiLeaks releases may have blown that chance for good.

And then look at assessment that the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan' made in February 2009.

She wrote, “Our major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in GOP [government of Pakistan] facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon.”

What is not expressly said here is the likelihood that another Abdul Qadeer Khan, the former chief scientist in Pakistan’s nuclear program who sold Pakistani nuclear know-hown to Iran, might be the next villain to cooperate with a rogue state or a terrorist group.

Did you know that most of the remaining detainees at Guantamo are Yemenis? If not, I am sure you know that Yemen has become a major haven for Al Qaeda types and their propaganda and recruitment schemes.

We may not like Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, but he has cooperated with us in hunting down dangerous terrorists.

The fact that the cables explicitly reveal Saheh’s cheerful affirmation, “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours [U.S. bombs]” and that he referred to this as lies, may cost this however flawed ally his office, if not life--and the U.S. Yemen's cooperation in fighting terrorists.  

Today’s New York Times editorial underrated the importance and possible impact of the WikiLeaks leaks. It noted that “what struck us, and reassured us, about the latest trove of classified documents released by WikiLeaks was the absence of any real skullduggery.”

If you wonder what “skullduggery” means, here is the definition according to the Encarta Dictionary: English (North America):

“…unfair and dishonest practices carried out in a secretive way in order to trick other people.”

I wish this would be the the only problem here.

In reality, there were and are far more important issues than dishonesty, secrecy, and the tricking of others as the material about Pakistan and Yemen attests to.

The particular material about Pakistan and Yemen mentioned above--and probably some that has not yet been published--should not have been published for the sake of national security.

Strange Bedfellows: Sarah Palin and the “lamestream” Media

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In today’s New York Times, the magazine’s lengthy cover story by Robert Draper features Sarah Palin, the darling of the tea party crowd, as the heavy weight among the potential Republican line-up of competitors in the upcoming presidential primary season. Draper’s  assessment of Palin’s political influence is as realistic as troubling. “Having crawled from the wreckage of the 2008 presidential campaign and her much-derided resignation as governor of Alaska,” he writes, Palin has “emerged as arguably the most captivating and influential Republican in America — and therefore a viable contender for the presidential nomination in 2012.”

Just as she told Barbara Walters last week that she is pondering a run for the White House in 2012, she answered “I am,” when Draper asked her whether she was “already weighing a run for president.”

Her Republican opponents who would love to stop her before she wins their party’s presidential nomination and her Democratic detractors who are certain that President Barack Obama would beat Palin handily, should take a look at Frank Rich’s column “Could She Reach the Top? You Betcha” in today’s Times.

Rich argues that her fellow-Republican critics must “man up” and “summon the courage to take her on mano-a-maverick in broad daylight.” But that would make them the target of the mass of Republicans (and, obviously, many Independents) who have bought into a populism of anger directed at the political elite that Palin stirs so effectively.

As for those who are sure that Obama would easily beat Palin, Rich is right to mention the possibility of more than two candidates in the race. He mentions New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg. The Left may think again of Ralph Nader. 

In the meantime, Sarah Palin continues to become richer—thanks to her contract with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, thanks to her infomercial “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” on TLC, and thanks to her past and forthcoming bestseller.

To be sure, Palin and her staff know how to play the social networking card extremely well. But although she attacks what she calls “the lamestream media” relentlessly, the truth is that her political muscle and bank account grow thanks to the mainstream media’s obsession with and over-coverage of the former Alaska governor.

Viewing America from Abroad; Viewing the Rest of the World from America

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Foreign news and transnational surveys cannot fully reveal how politicians and publics abroad view the United States, its politics and policies, especially, as the latter relate or are perceived to relate to particular countries and regions. Thus, reporting from abroad can never convey first-hand experiences and encounters abroad.

In this respect, there were a few things that struck me during my stay in Turkey and conversations with people from more than a dozen countries, predominantly, the Near and Far East, former Soviet republics, the Balkans, Western Europe, and, of course, Turkey:

Most of all, reports in Turkish and Western European media and my conversations with individuals or small groups reminded me (1) that foreign reporting is far more prevalent and comprehensive abroad than in the U.S. media and (2) that, probably as a consequence of different reporting patterns, people in other countries are much better informed about politics and policies in the U.S. and other countries than Americans are about politics and policies beyond their own borders. 

This may well explain why the view of America has not improved since President Obama moved into the White House. While not ignoring that Obama’s style is very different from that of his predecessor, the recurring theme I heard last week was that U.S. foreign and security policy did not change much, or not at all, in 2009 and 2010. Obviously, conciliatory messages can only work when meaningful policy changes come along with them.

Turkey is a foremost example for the waning influence of the U.S. in the world. The one-time reliant U.S. ally has not only moved away from marching to Washington’s drum beat but towards closer relations with Iran—not the least because the two countries are finding common ground in dealing with their own terrorist threats from Kurdish separatists of the PKK variety. Their is a perception that European and American decision makers are more sympathetic toward the Kurdish side and considerable determination to resist pressures from those circles to settle the Kurdish problem. It doesn't help that the once good relationship between Turkey and Israel is at a low point and may be beyond repair--another factor in the cooling of Ankara's attitudes vis-a-vis the U.S.

Inescapable is, too, that Iran’s influence is growing in the region. For example, there are growing economic and political interactions between Iran and countries in the region, for example, Georgia and Armenia.