Don't Take Wikileaks At Face Value
Mark Seddon is the former United Nations Correspondent and New York Bureau Chief for Al-Jazeera English TV. He reported from eighteen countries during that time, including North Korea, China, Haiti, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He has interviewed, amongst others, Ban Ki-Moon, Lech Walesa, Tony Blair, Hans Blix, Michael Foot, Mia Farrow, and George Clooney. In a journalistic career spanning over twenty years, he has been Editor of Tribune and an elected member of the UK Labour Party's National Executive Committee. He has written for most British newspapers and many magazines, including The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Mail, The Times, The Spectator, New Statesman, Private Eye, British Journalism Review and Country Life Magazine. For a number of years he was a Diarist at the London Evening Standard, and has also reported for, amongst others, the BBC and Sky TV. He lives in Buckingham, England.
There is a very real danger that some analysts, diplomats, commentators and politicians are taking all that is revealed by Wikileaks at face value, without questioning the veracity of some of the information gleaned from third sources and some of the information transmitted back by US diplomats, believing as they did that they were doing so under the cloak of anonymity.
Take for instance the views of US diplomats who had met with their South Korean counterparts and who had apparently discussed China’s attitude to North Korea with Chinese officials. We learn from Wikileaks that the more sophisticated Chinese foreign policy officials (and there I was thinking that all Chinese foreign policy officials are sophisticated – it goes with the terrain) believed that North Korea was increasingly behaving “like a spoilt child”. Furthermore, the Chinese had apparently told the South Koreans that their patience was “wearing thin”, that North Korea was behaving in a “belligerent manner” and that actually China would prefer to see the two Koreas united under the aegis of Seoul.
That will have been music to the ears not only of the US administration, but many other Governments in the West and East Asia. My own contacts with the Chinese over many years suggest that it is true that their patience has often been sorely tried, and that their influence over North Korea is sometimes exaggerated. It is true that many Chinese look at North Korea with a sense of bewilderment. The country seems caught in a permanent time-warp of ‘cultural revolution’, a phase that long since passed Beijing by. The Chinese wonder why the North won’t embrace the same mixed market reforms as it has. But here’s the rub, China spends 40% of her aid budget on North Korea, and keeps the lights on in that country by donating tens of thousands of tons of heavy fuel oil. In return, China has increasing access to North Korea’s rich raw material base.
The Chinese could of course be tempted by Seoul’s offer to recognise China’s claims over both Tibet and Taiwan. But a more juicy prize would be access to South Korea’s markets through a free trade agreement. This is being offered behind the scenes by the South Koreans, although the Chinese will wonder just how free any trade agreement with the South might turn out to be. Ever the realists, the Chinese will surely know that whatever the genuine attempts by Seoul to reach out, the idea that South Korea could be ‘dumped on’ with cheap Chinese goods, is pretty unlikely. The South Koreans would like to prize the Chinese away from North Korea, and given time and market reforms in the North, it is quite possible that China could one day recognise a united Korea – although crucially one where there are no US troops left on the Korean Peninsula. But again, the South Koreans are themselves more realistic. They believe that their best efforts to woo the Chinese may at least lead to China occasionally suspending its use over the veto when it comes to taking punitive measures over North Korea at the UN Security Council.
But it is fanciful to suggest as those diplomats did, and on the basis of second had information, that this is a process underway, and that China is set to recognise Seoul’s domination of a united Korea. Here is a case of South Korean diplomats partly deluding themselves, and telling the Americans what they want to hear.
Of one thing we can however be sure, the Wikileaks over North Korea in particular have changed the game plan, perhaps irrevocably. The North Korean regime of Kim Jong Il will be unnerved about what it has learned about apparent Chinese attitudes, and the regime may either decide to draw in its horns or act in the knowledge that it no longer has anything to lose. As for the Chinese, they will be utterly appalled by the leaks, and be obliged to make public noises of support for North Korea. The South Koreans and Japan will on the one hand be pleased that a split between China and North Korea has either been contrived – or is genuinely opening up.
Meanwhile the US administration must surely be wondering what on earth possessed it to allow such vital and secret information to be passed around to so many people that it inevitably leaked out, courtesy we are informed, of a twenty two year soldier.
Really, you couldn’t make it up.
This article first appeared on Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/
Giving our solar system a "slap in the face."
- A stream of galactic debris is hurtling at us, pulling dark matter along with it
- It's traveling so quickly it's been described as a hurricane of dark matter
- Scientists are excited to set their particle detectors at the onslffaught
The climate change we're witnessing is more dramatic than we might think.
A lazy buzz phrase – 'Is this the new normal?' – has been doing the rounds as extreme climate events have been piling up over the past year. To which the riposte should be: it's worse than that – we're on the road to even more frequent, more extreme events than we saw this year.
Once again, our circadian rhythm points the way.
- Seven individuals were locked inside a windowless, internetless room for 37 days.
- While at rest, they burned 130 more calories at 5 p.m. than at 5 a.m.
- Morning time again shown not to be the best time to eat.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.