8. WikiLeaks, the espionage of American diplomacy

Since November 28, 2010, the WikiLeaks website has gradually exposed 250,000 classified U.S. diplomatic documents, revealing many insider stories of U.S. diplomacy. The documents are secret cables exchanged between more than 270 U.S. diplomatic missions around the world and Washington.

Some politicians in the United States have issued statements to close this website, and it is one thing for this website to expose the source and motive of the documents, but what we value more is what the website forcibly declassifies these documents to show the world.

Western media commented that this was a catastrophe of global diplomacy, and it is not enough to say that it was a catastrophe of global diplomacy, but indeed a catastrophe of Western diplomacy led by the United States. Because these 250,000 documents mainly involve allies who have good relations with the United States, including European countries such as Britain, France, and Italy, as well as some allies in Asia. The content is a comment from American diplomats on politicians in their home countries, followed by diplomatic rhetoric smiling and shaking hands for photos, and very scathing comments.

From these large number of documents, we can see how self-respecting and centered US diplomacy is, which is very different from what the United States says on the surface about considering the interests of the whole world and human rights in the whole world. Even the evaluation of its allies is very scathing. When these American diplomats made these comments, they certainly did not expect that one day these comments would be known to the world, so they were very embarrassed and embarrassed.

The content of these exposures, including the evaluation of then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the evaluation of then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the evaluation of then-British Prime Minister Cameron, and the evaluation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, are all quite harsh, and they all seem to have a malicious flavor of personal attacks and sarcasm.

As soon as this document was exposed, the United States was very nervous, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made consecutive phone calls to the leaders of France, Afghanistan, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and other countries to explain. Before the documents were exposed, US State Department spokesman Crowley repeatedly stressed that US diplomats are not spies, and that diplomats collect information and make analysis and evaluation of information, which is the same for all countries in the world. It was also specifically emphasized that the information collected by diplomats in their reports to the State Department, as well as their analysis and evaluation, do not affect US foreign policy decisions. Crowley's remarks are like a dream, and how can diplomats not affect foreign policy if they directly report their sentimental comments to the US State Department? In addition, Crowley repeatedly said that American diplomats are not spies, and that diplomats of all countries collect all kinds of information about each other's countries. So after the wiki exposed these things, do you dare to say it?

The U.S. Department of State requires diplomats in the United Nations to cultivate a large number of informants who provide intelligence to the United States in the local area through material and spiritual rewards, and to collect all kinds of private information about the United Nations and other dignitaries, including their e-mails, correspondence, including telephone communications, and even DNA data. This kind of document exposure is really shocking. Even UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is not immune. And at that time, American diplomats at the United Nations were asked to pay attention to collecting Ban Ki-moon's true attitude on the Iranian issue.

Are you saying that this is the behavior of a diplomat? It's pretty standard spying activity. This is a great contribution to international politics made by the wiki website that exposed the document, allowing people to see such a hegemonic politics and hegemonic diplomacy. Beneath the surface of benevolence and morality, there are some reckless and despicable acts. It's not your opponent smearing you, it's the truest and unknown side of yourself. This is not someone else's slander against the United States, this is a true record of American diplomats, a true record of American diplomacy.

Therefore, some commentators say that the 250,000 reports declassified by the WikiLeaks website are the "9/11" of US diplomacy. It is conceivable that the magnitude of the shaking will have a great impact on the international image of the United States.

On the face of it, the impact of this incident will not be very large, because the exposed documents are mainly of the allies of the United States. These allies are also aligned with the United States for profit. Most of the leaders of the countries exposed in it, including the leaders of France, Britain, and Germany, have been commented so wantonly and humiliating by the United States, and they can swallow this bitter fruit because they have no choice, and the United States is the boss and can only swallow it for their interests.

There will not be major problems in the near future, but in the medium and long term, the credibility of US diplomacy will be affected, and everyone will have to be very careful to form an alliance with the United States and communicate with the United States very carefully, because any situation may be exposed. This will have a great impact on the network of the so-called US military alliance and the network of the security alliance. In layman's terms, you, as a boss, treat your accomplices in this way, and whether the accomplices are worth betting all their weight on you is something to consider.

The documents came to light in the same month that Swedish police issued an international arrest warrant accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexually assaulting two women, and British police arrested Assange the following month. In June 2012, Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK while on bail to seek political asylum. Later, Assange appeared on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy in the United Kingdom, publicly criticizing US President Barack Obama for launching a "political persecution" on the WikiLeaks website, and at the same time calling for the release of US soldiers identified by the United States as leaking secrets to WikiLeaks.

Assange did not mention Britain or Sweden in his "balcony speech", but devoted a long space to the United States. It seems that he also knows that it is the great pressure from the United States that Britain and Sweden are holding him back. The political persecution of WikiLeaks exposes the hypocrisy and double standards of the United States in promoting freedom of speech and information transparency.

This is actually a very paradoxical phenomenon, the United States talks about the benefits of the Internet everywhere in the world, including Obama and Hillary, and everywhere talks about how wrong it is for people to block the Internet and how much good the Internet has brought to the world. However, it is the US State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, that has spared no effort to suppress Assange and WikiLeaks, both overtly and covertly.

It can be seen that whether it is the so-called information transparency, democracy and human rights claimed by the United States, or the changes brought to the world by the Internet, when these are beneficial to the United States, the United States fully supports them; But when another voice represented by Assange appears on the Internet – of course, he is not the only force, he is only a more prominent force – and then another effect arises: the United States shoots itself in the foot.

Assange declassified not only U.S. diplomatic correspondence around the world, but also some secret documents about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, showing the world that U.S. decisions in these two wars were not based on humanitarian intervention, not on human rights, but all on the basis of U.S. national interests. There can be no reason to find a reason for this, and there can be a problem to cover up the problem. When this behavior of the United States was exposed to the world, the US State Department felt very embarrassed, so it desperately tried to silence Assange.

Assange poked the hornet's nest of the United States and exposed the unknown side of the United States, which he said about humanitarian intervention and the supremacy of human rights, which are all very high-sounding sides. The United States was very annoyed that the activities under the table were exposed.

The U.S. crackdown on Assange is actually suppressing the other side of the Internet that has had a huge impact on the U.S., and it has tasted the bitterness brought by the Internet. This is a very interesting phenomenon in international politics. When the United States used the Internet as a tool to subvert many countries, it suddenly found that its own image was also subverted to a great extent.

The attack or exploitation of WikiLeaks by the United States depends entirely on the national interests of the United States, and it embodies the distinctive characteristics of American pragmatism. American-style pragmatism is the most basic doctrine that has remained enduring since the founding of the United States, that is, as long as it is for the sake of the national interests of the United States, it can say or do anything. For example, in order to provoke the ongoing dispute between China and Japan, Hillary Clinton told Japan about the Diaoyu Islands issue, saying that the "U.S.-Japan Security Treaty" could be invoked. But when Hillary Clinton visits China, she needs China to make a corresponding big order for the United States, such as buying more US Treasury bonds, and Hillary can say a lot of things that Chinese like to hear. The United States has said such things on some occasions and that on other occasions, so it would be wrong to take the words of the Americans on a fixed occasion to represent the position of the United States. The only principle of American pragmatism is to revolve around American interests.

The United States is also very embarrassed by the persecution of Assange. Because for all the repression by the United States, Assange dared to speak out publicly. He is like a hedgehog, if the United States catches his words, he his hands; If you don't catch him, he will make trouble everywhere again. This is a very troublesome thing for the United States.

Of course, there must be a lot of secret deals between the United States and Assange, and there must be a lot of conditions secretly prescribed, which may be that this condition does not meet Assange's requirements, so Assange publicly stands up and says it. As far as the United States is concerned, both open suppression and covert carrots should be used together, and this is the usual policy of the United States.

Assange has become an international symbol today, and it is unlikely that the United States will simply eliminate him. It would be a good thing for the United States if Assange could be able to shut his mouth that hurt the national interests of the United States and let this mouth expose other countries. Therefore, when the United States blocks him, it is not simply to completely block him, but to seal the parts that are unfavorable to the United States, and if Assange releases something that is beneficial to the United States, the United States is still happy to see it.