I have to echo Chicanofuturenet on this one (with the caveat that clearly only the tip of the iceberg of documents has been forthcoming. Below are 10 itema posed on the web regarding the leaks -- not a single one as far as I can tell, is anything close to a shocking revelation or even much of an exposure. Perhaps they ar starting with these to dull the senses of anyone really interested (the stuff below is pretty tepid). Will leaking these usher the whole batch into the "who cares department" amongst mainstream Americans? How this plays in the rest of the world will be inteeresting to see; at this moment it does not look like anything people in other nations haven't seen before or hadn't guessed was going on.

SO, let's evaluate most certainly. As of this moment, though, to think that any of this is even going to raise many eyebrows does not seem very likely. We shall see what else is forthcoming...

Here are 10 key revelations from the cables:

1. Many Middle Eastern nations are far more concerned about Iran's nuclear program than they've publicly admitted. According to one cable, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly asked the U.S. to "cut off the head of the snake".

2. The U.S. ambassador to Seoul told Washington in February that the right business deals might get China to acquiesce to a reunified Korea, if the newly unified power were allied with the United States. American and South Korean officials have discussed such a reunification in the event that North Korea collapses under the weight of its economic and political problems.

3. The Obama administration offered sweeteners to try to get other countries to take Guantanamo detainees, as part of its (as yet unsuccessful) effort to close the prison.

4. Afghan Vice President Ahmed Zia Massoud took $52 million in cash when he visited the United Arab Emirates last year.

5. The United States has been working to remove highly enriched uranium from a Pakistani nuclear reactor, out of concern that it could be used to build an illicit nuclear device.

6. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ordered diplomats to assemble information on their foreign counterparts. Documents in the WikiLeaks cache also indicate that Clinton may have asked diplomats to gather intelligence on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's plans for Iran, and information on Sudan (including Darfur), Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Iran and North Korea.

7. The State Department labeled Qatar the worst country in the region for counterterrorism efforts.

8. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are tighter than was previously known.

9. Hezbollah continues to enjoy the weapons patronage of Syria.

10. Some cables reveal decidedly less than diplomatic opinions of foreign leaders. Putin is said to be an "alpha-dog" and Afghan President Hamid Karzai to be "driven by paranoia." German Chancellor Angela Merkel "avoids risk and is rarely creative." Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi travels with a "voluptuous blonde" Ukrainian nurse.

Let me start by confessing that of course, I have my biases (many because I am a revolutionary and I likely make leaps and assumptions in my assessment of things). With that said, let's begin with: "Heavy" for whom? For me, personally, not at all. For the advanced? I'd say it may stoke some fires (or, like in my case, confirm assumptions). For the mainstream? I just don't see it doing anything than either being a passing blip withn the avalanche of data points that swim across our eyes every day, or contributing to a general overlaod of cynicism. Peerhaps that is where our further agitation and propaganda come in with regards to WikiLeaks -- but as they stand now, they are not heavy.

Re: Saudi King -- for most Americans this is "them vs. them." Most folks even think Iranians are Arabs! For the Middle East street, Saudi Arabia has long been exposed, don't you think?

Re: Payoffs to take prisoners -- seems like the movie "Rendition" did at least as much exposure here. Plus, does this really surprise anyone, anywhere?

Korea, US, and China -- this may be heavy for those who still believe China is socialst. And, like the treaties that carved up the world after WW's 1 and 2, sure, there is interesting imperial machinations going on, no doubt. And, yes, it migh indeed be heavy for many Koreans, those who want reunificaiton and those who oppose it; so in this regard it might heighten the struggle/tensions there. But "lays bare"? Hardly.

If we want to make a case for selecting one or more of these WikiLeaks as faultlines and turn our agitation and propaganda energies towards fanning them, then let's make that case and proceed. Again, at this point the revelations without further information and/or revolutinary deepening remain not so heavy.

There is nothing in the cables suggesting China would sell out the DPRK. It is merely the speculation of some South Korean that China "might" be ok with it given some deal. [snark snip]

To announce indifference and non-surprise ahead of time is the other side of the ocnin of announcing these are heavy and speculating what might be revealed. I was not announcing indifference at all; I was remarking on the unremarkable nature of the leaks thus far (heck, Mike, all kinds of specualtions have been in the press and on the news shows about who/what might be the best way to attack Iran.

Forgive my imprecise use of the term faultlines; I was attempting to say (albeti clumsily) that perhaps if any of these leaks indicate a faultline that might require concentrated efforts to fan the flames, then that makes sense to me.

The leaks deserve thought in their own right most certainly; both as to your point about the fragility of state security and regarding the specific content. At this point, though (and this is my only point), these leaks are not that relevatory.

We don't get many gift horses and this one's mouth should very definitely be looked into. How you make the leap to huge historic event I just don't grok. What was the impact of ROund One of Wikileaks? Some damning footage of journalists being assassinated by US troops and Bradley Manning being arrested. Did I miss something about that moment in history?

I am not sure Pentagon Papers is a good example for what's happening now; this is such a different period in the US and the world. Hell, after 10 years in Afghanistan and 7 years in Iraq, with hardly a raised fist throughout the land (except maybe a "Troops Out" or "Jobs Not War" banner), and with all manner of evidence of non MWD, well, why do we think these leaks will be like Ellsberg's PP? The level of ignorance about the US and its role in the world during Vietnam could not have possibly produced "well, we all know LBJ's a liar, so there."

Two important things we must understand about today's consciousness: (1) in general there is just way too much information bombarding humans via the electronic media and there is a danger that Wikileaks will be dispersed as part of the glut (unless there is either a real blockbuster revelation or revolutionaries make a compelling case about aspects of these leaks); (2) in the US we cannot underestimate the psychological impact of 9/11 on the broad masses and its ability to paralyse people with fear and herd them generalyl towards either inaction or towards the right.

Lastly, I truthfully do not know a great deal about the situation in Nepal, so I do not have the same level of understanding and energy as you about what WkiLeaks might provide.

In another direction, Mike's "<b>finally</b>" in comment 4 also makes me think of why actions like the FBI raids on anti-war and international solidarity activists that included the seizure of decades worth of <i>papers</i> is all the more creepy, serious and harmful.

Ben Smith at Politico has an interesting take entitled:
"WikiLeaks target: American power"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45655.html

RWH has some points on the information overload that dulls the effect of something like this on mnay people. I certainly don't think that on their own these leaks will produce some sort of mass radicalization. But I do think that they are likely to have some impact on the political development of some of the advanced in ways that might be useful in pulling together cores of more radical folks. If, for example, the fights that are getting started in response to state budget cuts to higher education begin to produce a layer of radicalized student activists, as is happening in Europe, these leaks will be very valuable in winning those folks to more explicitly anti-imperialist politics. Thie radicalization of cores may involve relatively small numbers but can still have a big long-term impact on the prospects for the emergence of a revolutionary movement.

I agree TNL: these could be part of those many accretions that go into radicalizing one's consciousness.

I don't see this Cheng Guoping's comments as a big deal with regard to Korea. Of course China, by design, says a lot of things to a lot of people.

First, there's always been a neo-liberal CPC faction, in the image of the former leader Zhao Ziyang. I'm sure that faction would like to sever close ties to N. Korea. This is the faction that would lead China to utter downfall. The majority of the leadership has a very different view, and will maintain close ties with N. Korea.

Second, it's not really up to China in any case what N. Korea does. N. Korea is not to China was E. Germany was to the Soviet Union, in any geopolitical sense.

Third, China's closeness with N. Korea or lack thereof does not especially speak to the nature of its internal social system.

I think it's revealing that RW Harvey's pooh-poohing of the impact of the latest set of leaks focuses on US public opinion, as if that is the principal thing. Revelation of secrets by themselves are not what affects public opinion; obviously conditions have to be right. For instance, the torture photos leaked out of Abu Ghraib (although not by Wikileaks it's a similar thing with a small number of people using the internet to tell the world), had a huge impact on US public opinion. The latest leaks, I suspect, will have minimal impact on US public opinion, but that's not what matters, IMO.

Imagine how spooked the US ruling elites would have been if the KGB or East German foreign intelligence had published several years worth of US diplomatic cables during the Cold War. What we have with Wikileaks
is the equivalent of a people's intelligence service against the powerful. It's leveraging the very communications grid imperialism created to create a kind of unstoppable, self-sustaining secret publishing machine. It's a game-changer, because there will always be disgruntled individuals in key places who can get secrets and put them on a thumb drive.

This particular leak is also significant because it provides a kind of detailed CAT-scan of US imperialism. All the spin and rhetoric is stripped away and you see what the imperialists really are scheming about -- for instance, Prince Andrew in meeting in a secret in Kyrgyzstan saying that the US, UK and Western Europe are playing the Great Game to win. You can't really backpedal from that. It's one thing to say Nixon was a rascist, which was always denied by his supporters; it's another when you hear his voice on tape talking about Blacks, Jews and Mexicans. Plausible deniability just melts away.

The impact on public opinion abroad should not be underestimated. The cravenness and servility of Arab regimes like Egypt are revealed like never before, at a time when they are increasingly vulnerable and war with Iran is possibly looming. Or the meddling on internal German politics is likely to have a long-term impact. There will be many other repercussions in many places.

Wikileaks is rumored to be taking aim at corporate and financial secrets now. Given the state of the banking crisis in places like Ireland, the political impact of well-timed leaks could be quite large.

Using the CAT scan analogy, a scan by itself does not cure a patient. You need people to analyze the scan and carry out treatments. It's up to us to be doctors not spectators complaining that a bunch of dots on film don't cure anything. It comes down to the question of having an organized left that can analyze and act when opportunities present themselves.

I would like to say in addition: the fact that the diplomatic cables are being translated into today's electronic media should not be overlooked as a key aspect of how much damage this leak could do to the U.S. and its sphere of influence.

Let's compare and contrast the Cablegate information against the Pentagon papers, in hard terms:
<b>The Pentagon Papers</b> were published as 4 volumes, for a total of about 2,000 pages of material. This was a prepared history of the Vietnam War for Washington insiders, meaning there was a certain amount of inherent self-censorship. Presuming that this is just text, and using a formula of 1 typed 8.5 x 11" page = 1,024 bytes, this comes out to just under 2 MB of data. It covered a single region of the world (Southeast Asia). It was published serially by a single newspaper (The NY Times) and was published as a single abbreviated format, plus several subsequent editions (it's actually now available online in HTML and PDF formats).
<b>Cablegate</b> involves the publishing of over 250,000 individual diplomatic cables. These are the raw cables, meaning it will by design include embarrassing unfiltered information. Presuming these cables only include text, and that each cable is about 1 page, that's 256 MB of data. It covers multiple regions of the world, plus U.S. delegations to the UN in New York, Geneva, and its various programs. It is being published out-of-the-gate by WikiLeaks itself (which is translating the documents into Brazilian Portuguese), the Guardian, NY Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde. There is already a searchable .CSV file that includes just the header information, which already provides exploitable data (i.e., frequency of cables, volume of information, etc.)

So, as you can tell, the data itself is huge: we're talking about a leak that is a couple orders of magnitude larger than the Pentagon papers <i>at a minimum</i>. The leaks will affect U.S. diplomacy not just in one region, but <i>globally</i>. The media coverage is not just in the U.S., but is happening <i>internationally</i> in at least 5 languages right from the get.

And to make a further point: the data is all originating in electronic formats and without traditional copyright restrictions. This means, among other things, we can manipulate the data much more quickly than with the Pentagon Papers, where the best things folks could do was to transcribe the extracts and do back-of-the-envelope formulas for casualty rates. Visualization of the data points (i.e., showing volume of cables from specific embassies through heat maps or scatter plots) is much simpler.

I think we have our work cut out for us.

While it is true, even for us, that the daily and hourly bombardment of news has a numbing effect on people, there is news and then there is news of more import…possible game changers.

The Wikileaks have provided a real chink in the seemingly impenetrable armor of not only the U.S. imperialists, but their cohorts around the world. And while the different reactionary governments and forces are scrambling to undo this wide exposure or appear blasé blasé about the potential damage to them, we need to take advantage of the contradictions that are relevatory and that they are now enmeshed in.

The people worldwide aren’t supposed to be privy to any of this information—whether or not each cable is completely true, representative, or not. And it is interesting the U.S. government’s first (and continued) reaction, as they try to discredit the leaks, as a matter of (and under the guise of) a threat to “national security.” (Appearing all miffed that these leaks will both be putting “diplomacy” and the more covert henchpersons at risk, yada yada, in the geopolitical sphere.)

In today’s news, the focus seems to be around China and its role in both No. &amp; So. Korea, as well as the role of Yemen in the foreseeable machinations ala attack on Iran (and revealing more hidden political relations say between the U.S. and its more fragile Saudi alliance.) Is this not important information for the people to be aware of and have in their arsenal?

IMO one of the more positive things to come out of the 60s (and partly in tandem with the release of the Pentagon Papers) was, a huge majority of the world’s population, and certainly among U.S. and political activists worldwide, that one could never read the news in the same way…to this day, many of us who went through the 60s, always read between the lines. “Wait a sec…what’s really going on here? Who are our friends and who are our enemies?” I agree with Bob H. when he talks about the latest going viral, and that can work in people’s favor if handled correctly.

Michael Moore’s “Farenheit 9/11” did much to expose the real wheelings and dealings behind the Iraq war, as well as 9/11 itself for a huge and wide audience. Yes, I agree with Mike, "no WMD" revelations a very big deal. And although Cheney continues to cling to the WMD scenario, W was forced to backtrack at one point of his administration… “no no WMD found…” So what happens recently with his new and not revelatory tome, yet another revision of history and facts, and he’s back to saying that even though no WMD were found, doesn’t mean they didn’t/don’t exist, and that the U.S. was perfectly justified in invading and waging war against Iraq.

I am going to go out on a limb here, because am not sure that I am characterizing the naysayers about the importance of these Wikileaks properly. But my sense is that ultimately the naysayers, who basically say there is nothing new for them (!Really!), are ultimately backing themselves into an economist corner. It is true that “the people” most definitely learn some of the sharpest and life-long lessons from (often times their own) real-life struggle, but that surely doesn’t mean that they don’t learn and advance from pivotal ideological struggle and exposure worldwide, which on the surface might appear unrelated.

The battle for public opinion, and “consciousness” is often times a lot more subtle, and our enemies are masters at burying and rewinding truths to serve their own interests. While in a few weeks, the Wikileaks may take a backseat to Angelina and Brad, this is not to say that the leaks will not have a more long-lasting effect in the overall way people view their own government, or even revolutionary struggles like in Nepal and India, in the future. I would also like to add, that the info from the leaks potentially makes it more difficult for the imperialists to “get over” with their designs in Latin America and parts of Africa. The leaks help expose that the imperialists and wanna be’s are not simply monolithic.

With all the Islamophobia, fomented by all the reactionary forces, as well as through the backdoor by seemingly “liberal” members of the U.S. (or French or German) bourgeoisie, thought the following, in juxtaposition, was trés interesting from today’s news:

To excerpt….

“People in the Oregon town of Corvallis are showing their support for an Islamic center that was partially destroyed by an arson attack after it emerged a 19-year-old alleged terrorist had occasionally worshipped there….

“…The Corvallis Gazette Times reported that 45 people attended a meeting Monday night to voice their anger and disbelief at the arson attack in a place they had viewed as tolerant of different religions…

“….They hope to draw thousands of people to form a circle round the building.

Barnett also told The Oregonian local Jews were going to meet to discuss ways of showing support for the center.

"The main thing we want to do is show solidarity. The news should be that the majority of us want to stand side by side," he said, according to the paper.”

Well here's another one from Wikileaks:

-----
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missiles.html

Iran Fortifies Its Arsenal With the Aid of North Korea
-----

As has already been noted, assess critically.

Yes, let us assess critically:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/wikistink-2/#more-25777

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/wikileaks-more-israeli-game-theory-warfare/#more-25827

And with less skepticism:

http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir11292010.html

I have to be blunt here, Harvey, and say that the first two articles aren't "critical" --they're the same old anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that, somehow, the Jews are somehow always playing both sides. It's moronic and it does a great disservice to WikiLeaks who have done a great service by confirming Fatah's betrayals of the Palestinian cause (long rumored, but never entirely confirmed), as well as the craven actions of Israeli apologists --namely, cables exposing Congressman Wexler of Florida of having given briefings exposing just how hell bent Israel was on destroying the Gaza Strip.

If anyone wishes to believe in this nonsense theory that AIPAC is somehow behind WikiLeaks, I'd like to ask whether Joe Lieberman is somehow showering WikiLeaks with money by <a href="/http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/amazon_boots_wikileaks_from_servers_o7Kd7NG3TWCpYVoA7nB7WL" rel="nofollow">attempting to censor them</a>.

Now, dealing with this rationally: you know why there's a bias to the stories?
1) They're cables from the U.S.'s diplomatic corps - so of course there's a U.S. bias.
2) The NY Times is being quite selective about which cables they expose - as documented here. (It is noteworthy that the Times was not granted access by WikiLeaks but by the Guardian newspaper, who have done a slightly better job of reading between the lines).
3) Thus far we've seen just .1% of the actual cables. That's 291 cables out of 250,000. The exposures, when taken as a whole, will likely give a different story than they do when taken in such sample size.

Perhaps folks have reason to be suspect and it is not the same old anti-Semitism. I have no idea whose "behind" WikiLeaks, nor do you. So ideas, speculations, conjectures abound, here on Kasama and across the web. I am willing to take a sniff at all of it that I can.

You are right about the .1% figure, so maybe everyone should refrain from either proclaiming them "not much" or "historic revelations."

Perhaps we should take them literally one at a time and assess and either fan the flames or toss it aside.

One more for the road...

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/12/is-wikileaks-a-front-for-the-cia-or-mossad/#more-25853