Harsha Kuchampudi St.

Petersburg High School Why WikiLeaks is Bad Analysis Harms Diplomacy

Area Study 1: WikiLeaks Increases NATO-Russia Tension (CBS World News) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/07/world/main7125343.shtml (CBS/AP) After WikiLeaks' revelation of secret NATO plans to defend the Baltic states and Poland in the event of a Russian attack, the former communist country's envoy to the alliance says his country will demand NATO drop the plans, reports the Associated Press. NATO officials had feared "an unnecessary increase in NATO-Russia tensions," and wanted no public discussions of their contingency plans to defend Baltic states from Russian attack, according to the latest diplomatic memo released from WikiLeaks. Now that the plans are public, tensions have increased. The plans to defend the Baltic represent a crack in the more cooperative front put forward in recent years between the former Cold War rivals. Although NATO's core task is to defend its members, the alliance had not prepared detailed military plans for the defense of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania since they joined in 2004, reports the Associated Press. After Russia's lightning victory in the 2008 war with Georgia, the three began pressing for a greater U.S. and NATO presence. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was meeting with top EU officials on Tuesday in Brussels, where he was expected to sign an agreement helping clear the way for Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization next year, reports the AP. Russia already cooperates closely with NATO in the Afghan war, and in counter-narcotics and maritime anti-piracy operations, reports the AP. Medvedev attended the alliance's summit last month in Lisbon, Portugal, where NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen emphasized that NATO and Russia pose no threat to each other. At that meeting, the alliance adopted its new official doctrine, which states that NATO-Russia cooperation is of crucial importance since it contributes to creating "a common space of peace, stability and security." Still, the diplomatic cables show NATO struggling to fulfill its goal of cooperation with Russia and its promise to defend and keep safe its member states. "Washington believes that increased public attention on the issue could complicate our efforts to achieve that goal" of better U.S.-Russia relations, the cable states. "We need to make that point clearly to our Baltic Allies and Poland, while also underscoring that we take their request for NATO contingency planning seriously and support steps to address their concerns." Paul Teesalu, security director in the Estonian foreign ministry, described the defense plan as an "early Christmas present." He said such discussions should be conducted out of the public eye, saying that Estonia is looking for, "solidarity, not visibility." The plan, code-named Eagle Guardian, provides for a number of NATO units to defend Poland and the Baltic in case of attack, the Associated press reports. It also identifies ports in Poland and Germany that alliance naval forces would use in case of war. Russian diplomats in Brussels said the leaks did not come as a surprise, the AP reports. A diplomat who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said Moscow had been informed of developments by their colleagues at NATO and through press reports in Poland. Area Study 2: U.S. Says WikiLeaks Release Harms Diplomacy (Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty Organization) (http://www.rferl.org/content/us_wikileaks_diplomacy/2241907.html) U.S. officials say foreign powers are pulling back from their dealings with the U.S. government since hundreds of classified diplomatic cables were published on the WikiLeaks website. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said Washington had "already seen some indications" of this, and that it would make diplomacy "more difficult." He said the extent of the damage remains to be seen. "We do recognize that on a country-by-country basis there could well be some impacts. We've already seen some indications of meetings that used to involve several diplomats that now involve fewer diplomats," Crowley said. "I think we're conscious of at least one meeting where it was requested that notebooks be left outside the room." The data dump by WikiLeaks includes detailed exchanges between foreign and U.S. officials on politically sensitive matters. Earlier, U.S. officials condemned WikiLeaks for releasing a secret list of sites around the world that Washington considers critical to its national security. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the list had been stolen from the U.S. government. The list includes sites such as mines, companies involved in weapons systems, producers of vaccines and medicines, undersea communications cables, and energy routes in locations around the world. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said work was continuing toward the possible prosecution of those behind the release of the information.

Harsha Kuchampudi St. Petersburg High School Why WikiLeaks is Bad Analysis

Area Study 3: Obama betrayed British allies, WikiLeaks reveals (The National Examiner) (http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/obama-betrayed-british-allies-wikileaks-reveals) In a stunning story of alleged selfishness and betrayal, the Obama administration is accused of turning over an ally's nuclear secrets in order to get the Russians to go along with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START. In cables released by WikiLeaks and reported in the British news media, information about every Trident missile the U.S. supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama. WikiLeaks -- founded and run by Australian activist Julian Assange -in November 2010 released 250,000 classified diplomatic cables and is now the focus of a probe by U.S. government prosecutors. With President Barack Obama signing the new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia last Wednesday, the stage is set for the formal exchange of papers this weekend that will put the agreement into effect, according to Cheryl Pellerin of the American Forces Press Service. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov are scheduled to exchange ratification documents this Saturday, February 5, at the Munich Security Conference, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' representative to the treaty negotiations said. Edward L. "Ted" Warner told the Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service that within 60 days of the treaty's entry into force, both nations will have the right to conduct short-notice inspections of each other's nuclear facilities. "One of the crucial pieces of the more recent arms-reduction treaties, beginning with the START I treaty in the early 1990s, has been the provision for verification" of each other's nuclear claims at operating bases, test ranges and storage sites," he said. No inspections have taken place in either nation since START I expired in December 2009, he said, noting that the first START treaty represented "an enormous step forward in verification." The United States and Russia -- or its predecessor, the Soviet Union -- have signed a variety of strategic arms treaties going back to the early 1970s, Warner said. START I was signed in 1991 and ratified and entered into force in 1994. The Moscow Treaty in 2002 built on START I and lowered critical limits, particularly on deployed warheads, Warner said, noting that it expires in 2012. "In the original START treaty, the limit was 6,000 warheads. In the Moscow Treaty, the limit was between 1,700 and 2,200 -- 2,200 being the legal limit," he said. "In the new START treaty, which was concluded last April, the limit is now 1,550 strategic warheads." The U.S. Senate ratified the new START treaty on December 22 in spite of the warnings of military and geopolitical experts. British defense analysts claim the treaty risks undermining Britain s policy of refusing to confirm the size of the United Kingdom's nuclear arsenal. The allegations -- supported by WikiLeaks documents - that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as bargaining chips also sheds new light on the so-called special relationship , which was strong under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but has now been kicked to the curb by the Obama national security team. The details of American duplicity are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by WikiLeaks and The Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that: America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships; and that tens of millions of British pounds for overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes. A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia s support for the New START deal, according to the WikiLeaks documents. Although START -- a U.S. and Russia agreement -- was not intended to effect Britain, the WikiLeaks diplomatic document dump shows that Russia used the talks to demand more information about British Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US. Although the U.S. and Russia have allowed inspections of each other s nuclear weapons, the British government's arsenal size is classified, but understood to be significantly smaller than those of the U.S. and Russia.

Harsha Kuchampudi St. Petersburg High School Why WikiLeaks is Bad Analysis Decreases National Security
Area Study 1: WikiLeaks is threatening national security, says Downing Street (The Telegraph)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8167816/WikiLeaks-is-threatening-national-security-says-Downing-Street.html)

David Cameron s officials have been briefed personally by the United States ambassador to London as No10 braces for further embarrassing revelations from WikiLeaks throughout this week. The Prime Minister s official spokesman said: "Clearly we condemn the unauthorized release of classified information. The leaks and their publication are damaging to national security in the United States and in Britain, and elsewhere. It's important that governments are able to operate on the basis of confidentiality of information. Asked what it was that was damaging the spokesman added: "It has the potential to be damaging (to national security) but the very fact that this is inhibiting the conduct of governments ... governments need to be able to operate on a confidential basis when dealing with this kind of information, and the very fact that it is being leaked is damaging." However, No10 stopped short of backing calls from US politicians to declare WikiLeaks a terrorist organization. Area Study 2: Poll: Americans Concerned WikiLeaks Dump will Hurt the U.S. (CBS World News) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024619-503544.html) Of those Americans who heard about the website WikiLeaks' massive release of secret State Department documents, most think the incident will have damaging impact on U.S. relations overseas, a new CBS News poll shows. About three-quarters of the public has heard about the WikiLeaks release, and of those Americans, 60 percent believe it will have a damaging impact. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has cast his site as a place for whistle-blowers and said he released more than a quarter of a million State Department cables in the name of transparency. The White House said the release of the documents does not diminish the United States' role as a leader in global affairs. However, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the release disrupted the diplomatic process, and she worked the phones in the wake of the document dump to ensure that U.S. foreign relations remained intact. The CBS News poll found agreement from across the political spectrum on the impact of the document release. Seventy-four percent of Republicans say it will hurt the U.S., as do 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of independents. In general, most Americans do not think the public has the right to know everything the government does, if secret information concerns national security. Only one in four thinks everything should be public, even if it might affect national security. Democrats (30 percent) are more likely than Republicans (18 percent) to say the public has the right to know everything the government does.

Harsha Kuchampudi St. Petersburg High School Why WikiLeaks is Bad Analysis
Area Study 3: WikiLeaks only interested in damaging U.S. foreign policy (The Foreign Policy Magazine) (http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/29/wikileaks_only_interested_in_damaging_us_foreign_policy) The latest dump of classified information stolen from the U.S. government is extraordinarily damaging to U.S. national security, but not in the way that WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, apparently intended. (If the summer leak was a gusher what does that make this latest round, a tsunami?) Assange is a garden-variety anti-American who believes that the United States is a malevolent actor which engages in all sorts of shameful secret activities that, if revealed, would discredit all aspects of American power. Prior to earlier dumps of classified material, Assange claimed that the secret files would document massive war crimes by the United States. They did not. Based on the depictions of the cables in the media (the New York Times coverage begins here, the Guardian coverage begins here, and Der Spiegel's coverage begins here, it appears the same thing is true for this latest batch. The media apparently found no instances of shameful behavior -- I am assuming that if they had done so, they would have led with those stories. Instead, the cables document that American diplomats have been doing what they are supposed to be doing: collecting information, reporting their opinions and insights back to headquarters, and trying to build international cooperation in pursuit of core American foreign-policy goals. The cables document that diplomats often relay information that would be, well, undiplomatic to say publicly. Diplomats often get foreign interlocutors to be more candid when they believe their discussions will remain confidential. Diplomats also opine on a range of topics -- the limitations of current lines of U.S. policy or the weaknesses of allies -that would compromise an administration's effectiveness if shared with a general audience, but not because the views were dishonorable, or indicated that the United States was engaged in reprehensible behavior. The massive security breach has made every bilateral relationship more difficult and likely lowered the quality of diplomatic reporting. Will our interlocutors be as candid now that they have seen what happens? Ironically, Assange's attack on our diplomats has meant that our statecraft may be more dependent on cruder instruments of state power, especially brute force. (Elsewhere on FP, Dan Drezner reads the situation just as I do and notes one further likely result: an uptick in intelligence failures as the bureaucracy responds by stove piping information to prevent future espionage of this sort.) If WikiLeaks had uncovered evidence of gross misdeeds, I suppose reasonable people could debate the balance of interests the dump might have served. Outlandish claims to the contrary notwithstanding, the leaks have done nothing of the sort. Instead, they have damaged the United States and in doing so achieved no higher purpose than the damage they have done. To fervent anti-Americans, weakening the United States is an end unto itself. In wartime, we should expect enemies to seek to damage us in this way. How will President Obama respond to an enemy attack of this sort? Area Study 4: WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security (CNN United States) (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-06/us/wikileaks_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-diplomats-homeland-security?_s=PM:US)
WikiLeaks has published a secret U.S. diplomatic cable listing places the United States considers vital to its national security, prompting criticism that the website is inviting terrorist attacks on American interests. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the disclosure "gives a group like al Qaeda a targeting list." The sites are included in a lengthy cable the State Department sent in February 2009 to its posts around the world, asking American diplomats to identify installations overseas "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States." The diplomats identified dozens of places on every continent, including mines, manufacturing complexes, ports and research establishments. CNN is not publishing specific details from the list, which refers to pipelines and undersea telecommunications cables as well as the location of minerals or chemicals critical to U.S. industry. The list also mentions dams close to the U.S. border and a telecommunications hub whose destruction might seriously disrupt global communications. Diplomats also identified sites of strategic importance for supplying U.S. forces and interests abroad, such as in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf and the Panama Canal. The cable is classified secret and not for review by non-U.S. personnel. The United States and Great Britain condemned the disclosure. "There are strong and valid reasons for classifying vital information, including the identification of critical infrastructure that is important to not only our society and economy, but those of other countries," Crowley said Monday. "Without discussing any particular cable, the release of this kind of information gives a group like al Qaeda a targeting list," he said. "This is why we have condemned WikiLeaks for what it has done." Later, on the micro blogging site Twitter, Crowley said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange -- now facing extradition to Sweden in connection with a rape investigation -- "threatens to put others at risk to save his own hide." British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a statement that the publication is "damaging to national security in the United States, Britain and elsewhere." And Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee in Britain, said the list was "a gift to any terrorist (group) trying to work out what are the ways in which it can damage the United States."

Harsha Kuchampudi St. Petersburg High School Why WikiLeaks is Bad Analysis
Area Study 5: Public Sees WikiLeaks as Harmful (Pew Research Center) (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1823/poll-wikileaks-harm-serve-public-interest-press-handling) Most Americans following news about the WikiLeaks website's release of a huge trove of classified documents about U.S. diplomatic relations see the revelations -- which have received extensive media coverage -- doing more harm than good. Six-in-ten (60%) of those paying attention to the story say they believe the release of thousands of secret State Department communications harms the public interest. About half that number (31%) say the release serves the public interest, according to the latest News Interest Index survey conducted Dec. 2-5 among 1,003 adults. Yet the public makes a distinction between WikiLeaks itself and the press' handling of the document release. In August, the public was more divided about the impact of the release by WikiLeaks of thousands of classified documents about the war in Afghanistan. At that point, 47% of those who had heard at least a little about the story said the release harmed the public interest, while 42% said it served the public interest. In mid-summer, following release of classified documents about the war in Afghanistan, partisan differences were slight. About half of Republicans (52%) said that release harmed the public interest, compared with 44% of Democrats and 46% of independents. About four-in-ten of each said the release served the public interest. Looking at the media's handling of the recently leaked State Department cables, more Republicans (47%) than Democrats (35%) or independents (34%) say news organizations have gone too far in reporting the material, but none of these is a majority. By the same token, 45% of Democrats, 38% of independents and 36% of Republicans say the media has struck the right balance. About half (51%) of those who say the leaks harm the public interest also say news organizations have gone too far in reporting on the leaked material.

Harsha Kuchampudi St. Petersburg High School Why WikiLeaks is Bad Analysis
Area Study 6: List of facilities 'vital to US security' leaked (BBC News US & Canada) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766) In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security. The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs. Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants. BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says this is probably the most controversial document yet from the WikiLeaks organization. The definition of US national security revealed by the cable is broad and all embracing, he says. There are obvious pieces of strategic infrastructure like communications hubs, gas pipelines and so on. However, other facilities on the list include: Cobalt mine in Congo, Anti-snake venom factory in Australia, Insulin plant in Denmark. In Britain, the list ranges from Cornwall to Scotland, including key satellite communications sites and the places where trans-Atlantic cables make landfall. A number of BAE Systems plants involved in joint weapons programs with the Americans are listed, along with a marine engineering firm in Edinburgh which is said to be "critical" for nuclear powered submarines. In other cables released by WikiLeaks on Sunday: y Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, while prime minister, allegedly said at a lunch with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the West should be prepared to use force against China "if everything goes wrong" Qatar is allegedly using the al-Jazeera news network as a bargaining chip, apparently promising Egypt that it would cease the network's transmission there for a year if President Hosni Mubarak agreed to deliver "a lasting settlement for the Palestinians" Mrs. Clinton criticized efforts by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Kuwait to combat militants, and said that Saudi donors were the "most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide" The alleged mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, continued to run militant group Lashkar-eTaiba, along with the group's founder, Hafiz Saeed, despite being detained over the attacks

The geographical range of the document on installations is extraordinary, our correspondent says. If the US sees itself as waging a "global war on terror" then this represents a global directory of the key installations and facilities - many of them medical or industrial - that are seen as being of vital importance to Washington. Some locations are given unique billing. The Nadym gas pipeline junction in western Siberia, for example, is described as "the most critical gas facility in the world". It is a crucial transit point for Russian gas heading for western Europe. In some cases, specific pharmaceutical plants or those making blood products are highlighted for their crucial importance to the global supply chain. The critical question is whether this really is a listing of potential targets that might be of use to a terrorist, our correspondent says. The cable contains a simple listing. In many cases towns are noted as the location but not actual street addresses, although this is unlikely to stop anyone with access to the internet from locating them. There are also no details of security measures at any of the listed sites. What the list might do is to prompt potential attackers to look at a broader range of targets, especially given that the US authorities classify them as being so important. It is not perhaps a major security breach, but many governments may see it as an unhelpful development, our correspondent says. It inevitably prompts the question as to exactly what positive benefit WikiLeaks was intending in releasing this document, he adds. Former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind condemned the move. "This is further evidence that they have been generally irresponsible, bordering on criminal," Sir Malcolm said. "This is the kind of information terrorists are interested in knowing." But WikiLeaks lawyer Mark Stevens denied that WikiLeaks was putting people and facilities at risk. "I don't think there's anything new in that," he told the BBC. "What I think is new is the fact that it's been published by WikiLeaks and of course we have the WikiLeaks factor because a number of governments have been embarrassed by what's happened..."

Harsha Kuchampudi St. Petersburg High School Why WikiLeaks is Bad Analysis Puts Lives of Informants at Risk
Area Study 1: WikiLeaks Afghanistan: Taliban 'hunting down informants' (The Telegraph)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html)

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them. The warning came as the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website."Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," he said. Information from the documents could reveal: y y y Names and addresses of Afghans cooperating with NATO forces Precise GPS locations of Afghans Sources and methods of gathering intelligence

Bradley Manning, a 22-year old intelligence analyst, is the prime suspect in the leak inquiry. He is currently already in custody in Kuwait after being arrested for allegedly leaking other information earlier this year. However, he was previously caught boasting that he had leaked tens of thousands of documents on the Afghan war to the WikiLeaks website. Earlier this week, WikiLeaks published 90,000 documents mostly reports detailing operations by American and other allied forces in Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009. The website is threatening to publish thousands more documents. In his first comments on the massive leak, Mr. Gates said that "the battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world." "Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures will become known to our adversaries," he added. The defense secretary promised "a thorough, aggressive investigation to determine how this leak occurred, to identify the person or persons responsible, and to assess the content of the information compromised." Mr. Gates promised to take steps to protect the lives of US service members as well as Afghans possibly exposed by the leaks. The massive leak jeopardized the trust vital to gathering intelligence in the "field", said Mr. Gates, a former CIA director. "We have considerable repair work to do," he said. Area Study 2: Report: Afghan leaks dangerously expose informants' identities (MSNBC News) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38441360/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/) The leaking of 90,000 U.S. intelligence documents has put hundreds of Afghan lives at risk because the files identify informants working with NATO forces, The Times of London reported on Wednesday. In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, reporters found the names, villages, and fathers' names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing intelligence to U.S. forces, the paper said. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said that all the released reports were checked for named informants and that 15,000 such documents had been held back to protect people. Despite his claim, The Times of London gave examples of informants named in the released documents. '[X] said that he would be killed' The paper, which withheld all details that would identify Afghans, said a Taliban fighter considering defection was named in a 2008 interview. The document reportedly included his village and statements he made about specific commanders and other potential defectors."The meeting ended with [X] agreeing to meet with intelligence personnel from the battalion," the report reads, according the paper. It was not known whether the man subsequently left the Taliban. In a case from 2007, a middleman and the Taliban commander he spoke to were both named, according to the paper. "[X] said that he would be killed if he got caught interacting with any coalition forces, which is why he hides when we go into [Y]," the report read, according to The Times. The paper gave other examples and said that in all cases the dates and precise locations of meetings were included in the reports. In Baghdad, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters he was "appalled" by the leak. "There is a real potential threat there to put American lives at risk," he said. A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry, who declined to be named, said: "The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The US is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the US/international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."