Daily View: Wikileaks on China's attitude to North Korea

Commentators consider the implications of cables released by Wikileaks which show that Chinese leaders no longer regarded North Korea as a useful or reliable ally.

CNN Beijing Bureau Chief Jaime FlorCruz says the Wikileaks revelations are not new news:

"This is an interesting revelation but it is hardly new information, at least not among Korea- and China-watchers. We have heard of similar characterizations of the Chinese mindset in recent months from Western diplomats, describing Chinese frustrations with their North Korea allies. This document simply confirms that.
"China's frustrations have come out in the open a few times. When North Korea conducted a nuclear test in 2009, China broke ranks with North Korea and voted in the U.N. Security Council in favor of imposing sanctions on its North Korean allies. In the past, China, which wields a veto vote as a permanent member of the Security Council, would have simply abstained and let the resolution pass."

David Sanger's analysis in the New York Times suggests the cables are more ambiguous than some have suggested:

"The cables about North Korea - some emanating from Seoul, some from Beijing, many based on interviews with government officials, and others with scholars, defectors and other experts - are long on educated guesses and short on facts, illustrating why their subject is known as the Black Hole of Asia. Because they are State Department documents, not intelligence reports, they do not include the most secret American assessments, or the American military's plans in case North Korea disintegrates or lashes out. They contain loose talk and confident predictions of the end of the dynasty that has ruled North Korea for 65 years."

Editor of chinadialogue.net Isabel Hilton says in the Guardian that the revelation that China might accept the idea of reunification under South Korea could make an unstable situation worse:

"Beijing has proved unequal to the task of keeping North Korea in line, or, as yet, of persuading it to follow China's transition to a market economy. China is regarded as the last country that has influence in Pyongyang, but the leaked cables confirm how limited that influence is.
"Beijing has been unwilling to put real muscle into its persuasion, pointing to North Korea's desire to talk on equal terms with the US. China has facilitated the now stalled six-party talks, but has shied away from enforcing responsible behaviour or allowing the regime to collapse. The US, in turn, is reluctant to concede North Korea's demands for recognition and pleads with China to get its junior ally under control. Now the WikiLeaks revelation that China is beginning to accept the once unthinkable alternative - a reunification under South Korean control - may make an unstable situation worse."

Former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said on the Today programme that the leak may have put back a shift in Chinese policy by years:

"The tragedy of these Wikileaks is that if China is contemplating what would be a historic change in its attitude to North Korea and possible support for reunification, this premature revelation - because of statements made to an American diplomat which now appear in the world's press - that would have put that back by years. That shows the damage that can be done by unauthorised leaks of highly sensitive information and private conversations between diplomats."

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

In contrast, the Guardian editorial argues that we should not assume that the release of this information is harmful.

"Today's revelation from the embassy cables that North Korea had lost its strategic value to China as a buffer state between their forces and US ones, and that Beijing would accept the reunification of the peninsula under Seoul's leadership, should send shivers down the spine of the right person - the ailing dictator Kim Jong-il. Pyongyang could be about to lose its only insurer. Long before last week's lethal shelling of a South Korean island, it is clear from the private views of senior Chinese officials that their strategic asset had turned into a major liability... If the leaking of these cables was read and absorbed by North Korea's ageing generals, this would be an example of disclosure instilling realism into a military dictatorship which so clearly lacks it."

View the original article here

Daily View: Wikileaks release

US State Department assessments of governments and statesmen, including from Hamid Karzai, Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy have been published by Wikileaks. Commentators discuss whether this is a serious blow to diplomacy or just embarrassing.

Libby Purves argues in the Times [subscription required] that Wikileaks threatens to destroy the role of diplomats:

"[T]he likelihood is that the vast majority of material being hurled into the limelight by the insouciant Mr Assange will not reveal any actual treacheries or scandals. It will consist mainly of what diplomats call 'frank assessments'.
"And while the UK can probably forgive and forget a few frank assessments - OK, ripe insults - about Gordon Brown's social skills. David Cameron's inexperience or who the hell is this Clegg guy, there is real fear that the touchier countries around the world will be outraged. Especially in the Muslim nations, where it seems to be all right for pretty senior voices to refer to us as kuffar, dogs, infidels, etc, whereas the slightest reservation about anything Islamic is considered an atrocity second only to the Crusades.
"...If diplomats no longer dare to send undiplomatic, unvarnished truths to their governments on encrypted cables, the world's peace will be in more danger."

Blake Hounshell in Foreign Policy calls the leaks troubling:

"US diplomats should be able to share their assessments candidly with the folks back in Washington without fear of waking up and finding their cables splashed across the front page of the New York Times. People who take great risks to share sensitive information with embassy officials won't come forward if they worry that the Kremlin, or the Mugabe regime, is going to punish them for their candor. And sometimes too much media attention can get in the way of quiet progress, as in the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Max Boot in Commentary magazine condemns newspapers' involvement with the leak:

"There was a time when editors and reporters thought of themselves as citizens first and journalists second. There were damaging leaks even during World War II, but when they occurred they were generally denounced by the rest of the press. We now seem to have reached a moment when the West's major news organizations, working hand in glove with a sleazy website, feel free to throw spitballs at those who make policy and those who execute it. This is journalism as pure vandalism. If I were responsible, I would feel shame and embarrassment. But apparently, those healthy emotions are in short supply these days."

In contrast Benedict Brogan argues in the Telegraph that the leaks are embarrassing but not serious:

"The Wikileaks story is great fun. The embarrassment of others always is. But however much the Guardian, the New York Times and Julian Assange assure us that this represents a shattering blow to every assumption we hold about foreign relations, the fact remains that it's a collection of little substance that will do nothing to reshape geo-politics. The Saudis would like someone to whack Iran? No kidding. Afghanistan is run by crooks? Really? Hillary Clinton would like to know a lot more about the diplomats she is negotiating against? You surprise me. The Russian government may have links to organised crime? Pass the smelling salts, Petunia. The Americans are secretly whacking al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen? What, you thought the Yemenis were doing it? Muammar Qaddafi has a full time, pneumatic Ukrainian 'nurse'? Nice one. Diplomats are terrified of Pakistan's nukes? Me too. And so on, ad infinite boredom."

Writing on the website Arabist Issandr El Amrani says that while this may not reveal anything new for the US, the leaks are still significant:

"There is so much information flowing around about US policy - and often, a good deal of transparency - that a smart observer with good contacts can get a good idea of what's happening. Not so in the Arab world, and the contents of the conversations Arab leader are having with their patron state are not out in the Arab public domain or easily guessable, as anyone who reads the meaningless press statements of government press agencies will tell you. Cablegate is in important record from the Arab perspective, perhaps more than from the US one."

The chief executive of Index on Censorship John Kampfner makes a prediction in the Independent about how Wikileaks will prompt changes in the law:

"Once this latest flurry is over, prepare for the backlash. Mr Assange's industrial-scale leaking may lead to legislation in a number of countries that makes whistle-blowing harder than it already is. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the Wikileaks revelations is not that they have happened, but it took someone as mercurial as Mr Assange to be the conduit. Rather than throwing stones, newspapers should be asking themselves why they did not have the wherewithal to hold truth to power."

View the original article here