Best Analysis of WikiLeaks Impact

Stratfor is a company based in Austin, Texas, that specializes in analyzing key political, economic, and military developments around the world. They just released a Geopolitical Weekly article focusing on the real significance of the WikiLeaks project revelations on world events.

The article is worth reading in its entirety for at least two reasons. First, George Friedman does an excellent job analyzing the significance of the material that has been leaked as well as the potential impact the leak will have on future diplomacy. I believe his analysis helps strip away the media hype to reveal the real significance of the cables.

Second, Friedman also demonstrates why confidentiality is necessary for all organizations, including government, to function. One quotation illustrates the clarity of his argument. "This is the contradiction at the heart of the WikiLeaks project. Given what I have read Assange saying, he seems to me to be an opponent of war and a supporter of peace. Yet what he did in leaking these documents, if the leaking did anything at all, is make diplomacy more difficult. It is not that it will lead to war by any means; it is simply that one cannot advocate negotiations and then demand that negotiators be denied confidentiality in which to conduct their negotiations. No business could do that, nor could any other institution. Note how vigorously WikiLeaks hides the inner workings of its own organization, from how it is funded to the people it employs."

Click on the link in the first paragraph to read the entire article. I believe it is the best overall analysis of the whole WikiLeaks controversy published to date.

Turkey's involvement in Iraq

A report in today's online edition of Hürriyet, Turkey's English-language newspaper, focuses on WikiLeaks documents showing Turkey's attempts to influence the most recent elections in Iraq. These leaks are a source of embarrassment to Turkey because they paint a picture of Turkey and Iran working against each another to influence the outcome of the elections. And in the end, Iran came out on top.

Turkey unsuccessfully sought to replace al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated administration with a Sunni-backed one. But why was Turkey so interested in ousting an administration they had earlier supported? I believe there are two reasons, one religious and one political. Religiously, Turkey's population is 80% Sunni Muslim. So it makes sense for the Turkish government to push for a Sunni-influenced government rather than one dominated by Shiite parties.

But Turkey's support for the Sunni-backed candidates involved more than religious preference. The Shiite-dominated government of al-Maliki is a coalition government composed of both Shiite and Kurdish parties. Turkey continues to battle the Kurds within their own country who are pressing for an independent country of Kurdistan. In supporting the Sunni candidates, Turkey was hoping to weaken the power of the Kurdish party within Iraq. And northern Iraq has been a base of operation--and a safe haven--for Kurdish rebels.

WikiLeaks has certainly harmed the prestige of the United States around the world. But the leaks are also proving to be an embarrassment to other countries, like Turkey, as revelations surface regarding their attempts to shape world events to their own national advantage.

Wikileaks and the Middle East, Part 2

As the WikiLeaks drama continues to unfold, it's starting to become yesterday's news. That is, much of the more recent material is similar to what has already been leaked. Once the shock value of the first documents wore off, these additional revelations are receiving less coverage. And perhaps that's a good thing.

However, I came across an analysis of WikiLeaks documents related to U.S. Middle East policy that I believe is worth reading. The article highlights the flawed assumptions behind the current U.S. policy of "engagement" in the Middle East--a policy that assumes it's in our long-term interest to engage former enemies like Iran and Syria and to pressure Israel to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian problem, which is supposedly the root cause for most turmoil in the Middle East.

The article, "Wikileaks reveal flaw in US Middle East policy," shows the fallacy behind our current policy. As the documents demonstrate, many of the countries in the Middle East believe the root problem is not the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, it's Iran and her commitment to export Islamic fundamentalism. I'll cite one example from the article to illustrate this point. The article quotes cable detailing a meeting between Saudi King Abdullah and White House adviser John Brennan. The cable quotes King Abdullah's response to a suggestion that a solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict would help diffuse problems in the Middle East. “A solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict would be a great achievement, but Iran would find other ways to cause trouble.”

King Abdullah sees Iran, not Israel, as the real source of trouble in the Middle East. The article also quotes other cables from leaders like Egyptian President Mubarak in which these leaders try to help the U.S. understand Middle East "facts of life." They believe the real "neighborhood bully" is Iran, not Israel. And they wish the local cop on the beat (the United States) would do something about the bully before it's too late.

WikiLeaks and the Middle East

The release of thousands of documents by WikiLeaks has dealt a blow to U.S. prestige and influence in the world. Leaders of other nations will be far more careful in what they say to U.S. diplomats if they believe their private conversations might someday become public.

If there is any silver lining in this diplomatic cloud, it comes through the insight we have gained into the world of diplomacy. A tiny curtain was pulled back and we were given acces to the private conversations of world leaders. Most of the information was not new, or unexpected. Some was already known through earlier leaks to the press by "unnamed government sources" and "senior government officials." The WikiLeaks documents simply unmasked those who were the original sources for that information. And now, having been burned, they will be far more guarded in the future.

Is there anything of significance in the documents relating to Israel and the Middle East? Some items have emerged, though most are not surprises.

1. The major concern among America's Arab allies in the Middle East is Iran, not Israel, especially Iran's nuclear program.

2. Over three years ago Benjamin Netanyahu predicted that the acid test for determining how serious the Palestinians were about peace would be their willingness to accept a Jewish state without demanding a right of return for Palestinians.

3. The West failed the Palestinians when it helped fund a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy rather than working to build a healthy economy.

4. Israel tried to coordinate the Gaza war with both Egypt and the Palestinian Authority--to have them take control of Gaza after Israel smashed Hamas--but both refused.

I'm sure more items will surface as people pour through the documents, but these are some of the major points that have surfaced so far.