While browsing through the cables released by the controversial website, Wikileaks, it reminded me of the fiction of Ibn Safi that used to be very popular for spy games during my childhood. Who could have thought that the latest computer technology would not only bring the highly classified documents of the most powerful nation in the public domain but also startle the international community in such a way that their political manoeuvring and manipulations, often depicted in films, would in fact turn out to be real. Forget about the fantasies or fiction on US spying, Wikileaks has opened the new world of right to information and takes exposure of secret dealings to unknown heights where everybody keeps guessing what comes next. The interesting thing is that the leaks have exposed the powerful nation to its foes and friends and unveiled the dirty politics behind diplomacy.
The two hundred and fifty thousand documents released by the website have brought icy chill not only to the US administration but to the whole world. Because of the growing inter-dependency among the countries even the smallest nations of the world cannot afford to remain unaffected by the revelations. Yet, to the satisfaction of many, this time somebody ‘big’ is a loser. What looks most worrying is how Muslim countries claiming a bond of religion with each other are playing against each other at the behest of somebody else.

There are a few significant issues raised by these disclosures: One, how the US administration spies even on its close allies and ridicules them in its secret correspondence. Secondly, how Muslim nations have become tools of Washington in order to safeguard its own interests. The concept of Ummah created by the rulers is just mere eyewash.

It was America which originally advocated the formation of the United Nations to work independently in order to bring order, discipline and political stability in the world. Then, it was Washington again that not only undermined the international forum during the Second Gulf War but rendered it useless and irrelevant even to this day. The US declared itself the sole policeman of the troubled world and begun invading sovereign nations. Again, it is the same so-called liberal democracy that has been doing spying not only on terror networks which is justifiable but also of the movements of diplomats, ambassadors and the staff of the United Nations.

A memo  issued under US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name to her ambassador advises him to collect "biographic and biometric" information - including iris scans, DNA samples and fingerprints - of key officials at the UN in the same way as has been done for terror networks in Waziristan and Afghanistan. Is there any difference between Osama Bin Laden and Kofi Annan so far as American terror policy is concerned? It seems not. Perhaps the UN Secretary General is waiting now for another memo from Washington declaring him and other diplomats part of the terrorist network.
It is hardly a secret that some Sunni Arab states particularly Saudi Arabia are worried about Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East, partly due to the fact that Ahmedinejad is the only voice in the region defying the United States on every front. Whether it is Iran’s nuclear programme, the Palestinian issue or the invasion of Iraq, only Iran has so far not yielded to US pressure whereas the Saudis have provided everything from land to logistics for the Iraq invasion and now have the audacity to demand military action against Iran’s nuclear assets.

If, in the near future, the time comes when Washington is asked to justify human rights violations in Iraq and Afghanistan, its allies including Saudi Arabia will be seen as complicit in everything that America did in these countries. The revelation of Wikileaks that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recommending cutting ‘the head off the snake’ in relation to Iran is an eye opener for the rest of the Muslim world.

It was expected that the release of cables would be picked up by the liberal media with care and caution. However, the reporting of the leaks has been selective. The main headline was not that the UN was again being undermined. Instead, the Iran vs. Saudi Arabia rivalry was highlighted. Ahmednejad displayed prudence when he played down the revelation and the idea of any intense hostility with Saudi Arabia. 

Washington had earlier warned its close allies like Britain, Israel and India about the possible disclosures that might undermine its relations. However, it was least worried about other allies like Pakistan, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia that are considered only satellite states by the super power. The revelations regarding Pakistan are hardly shocking and everybody from Pakistani establishment to people are fully aware about the ‘bond of love’ shown by Washington at a time when it is fighting its ‘war on terror’ on their land for the last seven years. ‘It is better to get as much money as possible for this bond of love at least’ says one of the politicians in Pakistan.

Noam Chomsky said, ‘the media has a strong capability of manufacturing consent by planting news of its liking’. I wonder what Chomsky would say about the Wikileaks revelations. Is it some ploy by liberal democracies to make their opinions known so as to unleash terror on the minds of weak nations or a new technology to uncover the machinations of the great powers?

(Feedback on nayeema7@gmail.com)

Lastupdate on : Sat, 4 Dec 2010 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Sat, 4 Dec 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Sun, 5 Dec 2010 00:00:00 IST