Bharat Rakshak

This love unblushingly speaks its name in the cables; even the racketeers of Pakistani military and intelligence appear dignified when compared with the Indians stampeding to plant kisses on U.S. behinds.

ramana wrote:Assange ko MMS pur gussa khyun? What goes his father? Unless he is leaking per higher directions?

SSridhar wrote:It means he has a habit of reactively covering up corruption allegations:Assange on PM Man Mohan Singh
Mr. Assange is genuinely distressed and not a little outraged by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's disputation in Parliament of the authenticity of the India Cables, his Lok Sabha statement that the government “cannot confirm the veracity, contents or even the existence of such communication.”

Muppalla wrote:^^^
The grapevine is that Typhoon (I called it as Aryan jet because of more-German involvement) is either selected or on the top before Rafale. F16 and FA-18 are no where near selection. All the wikileaks are coming only after such news/rumors getting out.

abhischekcc wrote:However, I doubt that wikileaks was directed against India and India alone. It is too big and blunt an instrument to use against our elite. All parties in India have been embarrased. The only long term effect of this scandal will be that people will be wary of talking to American diplomats, indeed any diplomats. So US diplomacy in particular and diplomacy in general will be the big loser.

If US wanted to fire a shot across our bows, they have a number of other (much better focussed) options to choose from.

ramana wrote:The more one looks at wikipees one is reminded of a vishakanya ment for Indian political elite. True it has tantalizing hints about other countries but its most damagin to Indian elite structures: politicians: in and out of power, babus and op-ed makers. Even its exclusive disbursal in India thru N Ram is pointer as he gets to decide what to reveal at what time. Assange's getting upset at MMS for being dismissive is another pointer of who it was supposed to damage but didnt.

So even if wikipees has salcious details of other countries (these are to prevent being them being viewed as anti-India so adds to its pseudo-credibility) the main intent is a warning shot acorss the Indian elite's bow.

ramana wrote:The more one looks at wikipees one is reminded of a vishakanya ment for Indian political elite.

Acharya wrote:Got some info on Anna Hazare. He is a marxist for a long period of time. So his connection to the international organization should not be dis counted.

Wikileaks and external actors

One cable ( 248355), after reviewing the opinions and information that were collected, concluded that “U.S. studios have to still find a good working model for partnering with Bollywood.” However, it was optimistic that U.S. companies can still “achieve success in this unpredictable market where even the best Bollywood studios and stars have been known to falter.” In order to get there, the cable advised, the U.S. studios “have to diversify the production pipeline to include a mix of small, medium and big-budget films by renowned and new talent for mainstream and world cinema audiences.”

Acharya wrote:

SSridhar wrote:It means he has a habit of reactively covering up corruption allegations:Assange on PM Man Mohan Singh
Mr. Assange is genuinely distressed and not a little outraged by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's disputation in Parliament of the authenticity of the India Cables, his Lok Sabha statement that the government “cannot confirm the veracity, contents or even the existence of such communication.”

Who the F)(k is Mr. Assange to talk about India and MMS.

sanjaykumar wrote:One really has to admire the American diplomats' wide range of subjects deemed to be potentially important to US interests and also their thoroughness.

Highly competent.

The primary thrust of Mulford’s advocacy of close relationship with India was geo-political. As China was not a democracy, there was a limit to how friendly the Sino-US relationship can ever be, but the US faced no such limitation on its relationship with India, the so-called world’s ‘largest democracy.’

Elaborating on religious freedom issues in India, Murphy said a victory for Hindu Nationalist party BJP in India's general elections next May probably would not be good for the Catholic Church. The BJP has favored anti-conversion laws on the books in five Indian states. These are of concern to the Vatican, even if they are not being applied, because they create a hostile environment to religious freedom and discourage the conversion of Dalits in particular.

Jay wrote:

Who the F)(k is Mr. Assange to talk about India and MMS.

Why not?

Acharya wrote:

Jay wrote:

Who the F)(k is Mr. Assange to talk about India and MMS.

Why not?

Would prefer an Indian who has done some work in exposing Indian system. There are several and one such person is MP Dr Subramaniam Swamy. He had started this from 2005 onwards and has done tremendous work.
Firangi not required inside India and we had them for several centuries already interfering. Do you prefer them.

Jarita wrote:^^^ Actuallly there is a problem in getting too many phoren opinions and that includes the likes of gasbag sepoy Meghnad Desai

“The cost of losing Afghanistan is too great for India,” he told Ms. Palmer during a meeting, noting that India has a $650 million aid programme in the country. “Opining that either a real or perceived failure in Afghanistan would be disastrous for the U.S., Parthasarathy said that India would be in ‘deep trouble' if the U.S. walked away from the conflict. Palmer emphatically reassured him of the U.S. government's commitment to stay the course in Afghanistan.”

A “prosperous, friendly” Afghanistan would assert its independence through foreign policy and, therefore, become a threat to neighbouring Pakistan. Ethnic Pashtuns, he said, had “shifting loyalties” and though Osama bin Laden was well-protected, every Pashtun “has his price.” The Pashtun region, the cable reported Mr. Parthasarathy as saying, needs more integration and development. Tajiks and Pashtuns should not be thrown together in the same battalions in the Afghan National Army because they lack ethnic linkages to each other. “If you are fighting, you must have a cause to fight,” he remarked, adding that Tajiks feel abandoned and would benefit from having an all-Tajik battalion, as would the Uzbeks.

A Pakistani businessman alleged by the U.S to have had a direct link with Osama bin Laden, of plotting to acquire chemical and other weapons for al-Qaeda, and offering his media network for al-Qaeda propaganda was among the Guantánamo detainees whose repatriation the Pakistan government actively pushed.

The 64-year-old Saifullah Paracha remains in the Guantánamo Bay prison, possibly its oldest inmate and among the last six Pakistani prisoners not yet considered fit for release and repatriation by U.S. authorities. A U.S Embassy cable from Islamabad, dated August 30, 2006 ( 76668: confidential/noforn) details that a delegation of Pakistani officials who visited Pakistani detainees at Guantánamo returned with the impression that most of the detainees “are individuals who were ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time', not extremists who pose a serious threat.”

The cable is a report of the Pakistani delegation's Guantánamo visit, as told to the Political Counsellor at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad by Lt. Col. Imran Yaqoob — wrongly mentioned in the cable as Imran Farooq — Director of Operations at the National Crisis Management Cell in the Pakistani Ministry of Interior, who was in the delegation.

The cable said, the Pakistani delegation that visited Guantanamo in early August that year, “left with the impression that no major obstacles remain to the repatriation of six of the Pakistani detainees,” including Paracha, “provided that the GoP [government of Pakistan] makes arrangements to keep him in detention here in Pakistan.”

The Karachi businessman was arrested in Bangkok on July 8, 2003, and transferred to the U.S. off-shore prison in Cuba on September 19, 2004.

One of his sons, Uzair Paracha, had been arrested in the U.S. earlier that year and charged with providing material assistance to al-Qaeda. He was convicted by a US court in 2006.

The U.S. officials in Guantánamo assured the delegation that if the Pakistan government submitted a formal request for repatriation, it would be favourably considered. Lt. Col. Yaqoob told the U.S. Embassy official that he had already written to the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs in support of sending such a request. In addition to the six detainees at Guantánamo, Pakistan also wanted the repatriation of 20 more of its nationals being held in Afghanistan.

But Lt. Col. Yaqoob “warned that for the GOP to keep Saifullah Paracha in custody, it would need information/evidence from the USG to justify his continued detention, noting that Paracha's family has a petition protesting his detention pending in the Pakistan Supreme Court. Without some evidence to support a longer detention, LTC Imran said, Pakistani law would only permit his detention for three months”.

The Americans saw India as the biggest stumbling block in their attempts to achieve a compromise over the expansion of the UN Security Council to include new members.

In diplomatic cables dating from 2007 -- when the negotiations started gathering pace -- to 2010, the US delegation to the UN variously characterised India as an adamant, aggressive, threatening, uncompromising and acerbic.

Out of the five actors -- India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Africa -- pushing for expanding the Security Council, India and Africa were often singled out by US diplomats for being inflexible and pig-headed, according to the cables leaked by Wikileaks.

The then Indian permanent representative to the United Nations Nirupam Sen was described as someone with a sharp tongue.

“The Indian delegation was the most rigid. Their acerbic interventions in the open ended working group [meeting] insulted the UFC [alliance led by Pakistan and Italy against India, Germany etc.], the President of the General Assembly, and irritated China.

“The Indian Perm Rep, who spoke after the Chinese DPR at the September 15 OEWG meeting, sharply criticized the Chinese position in support of [continuing with] the open ended working group and consensus deliberations, characterizing it as the "swan song of a declining organization (Security Council)” noted another bitter description of India’s position, in September 2008.

In fact, India’s hard-nosed negotiation style was starting to rub-off on its allies too, as shown in the following excerpt from an August 2008 cable.

“Kerim, who had just returned from a working visit to Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, told the [US] Ambassador August 7 that the Brazilian Foreign Minister "showed his cards" and told him that Brazil would "behave like India" and join India in tabling a resolution if inter-governmental negotiations are not launched through the current process.

UN negotiations are often dull, drab and devoid of drama. However, occasionally, like on September 15, 2008, they become the stage for high drama that can give any Hollywood potboiler a run for its money.

The following incident, which may aptly be characterized as an all out diplomatic war, happened between two opposing groups of nations -- the G-4 comprising of Germany, India, Brazil and Japan and the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) made of the formers’ neighbours and rivals -- Pakistan, Italy, Spain, Argentina, South Korea, Mexico etc..

The war was over whether or not the proposal to inject new members into the UN Security Council should be decided by consensus (all agreeing) or by majority vote.

The subsequent victory, which saw the UfC alliance resoundingly thrashed by the G-4, is credited with breathing a new life into the negotiations over Security Council reform that had been stalled for more than a decade.

The victory was also remarkable as it went against the then stated positions of the big powers of the UN -- China, the US and Russia. It was also the first time the G-4 alliance won a decisive victory against the UFC alliance (Pakistan, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Mexico etc..)

Not surprisingly, countries like China, Russia and the US -- wary of 'too much reform' -- publicly endorsed the ‘consensus’ mode over the voting mode, leading India to finally threaten to take drastic action in mid 2008.

Despite the US' official stand favoring an expansion of the UN Security Council, new diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks show how it was doing everything it could to delay or mould the reform process to its ends.

According to them, the US delegation to the United Nations worked out a clear strategy to delay or prevent the entry of new aspirants such as India, Brazil,and Germany into the World's most exclusive club of veto-weilding UN nations. It, however, consistently supported Japan's entry.

In public, the US has always maintained a stand that it was in favor of expanding the permanent membership club (P5) to more members, but the cables clearly show US diplomats plotting to ensure slow progress in the intergovernmental talks on the expansion.

The talks for expansion have been on for two decades, led by India, Germany, Japan, Brazil (the G4) and the African Union (AU), but gathered momentum in 2008 when the aim of the talks was restated from ‘building a consensus’ opinion to building a majority opinion on the expansion.

WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables, without redactions.

WikiLeaks has published its full archive in an easily accessible and searchable manner, the first time the content has been made widely available to those without sophisticated technical skills.

"Some of the new cables have reportedly not been redacted and show the names of informants in various countries, including Israel, Jordan, Iran and Afghanistan," it said in a statement. "While it has not been demonstrated that lives have so far been put in danger by these revelations, the repercussions they could have for informants, such as dismissal, physical attacks and other reprisals, cannot be neglected."

Got from http://193.198.207.6/wiki/file/xyz/, a Wikileaks mirror, and decrypted it using a password ( "ACollectionOfDiplomaticHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#" ) in a book (WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War On Secrecy written by David Leigh and Luke Harding, and published in February 2011.), available here: http://pastebin.com/SBq9Xpsr

Extracted (use 7-Zip to extract), it is a file called cables.csv, and is 1.61 GiB in size. It seems to be the full Wikileaks cable cache, unredacted and now decrypted.