When you really look at the wikileaks #cablegate cables – you know - those dramatically released, feverishly discussed, globally significant weapons of damming truth, anyone who is marginally informed will actually see overwhelmingly, a bunch of general, non-threatening cables peppered with doses of what looks to be frank honesty…and that’s it. After much hooplah, you may begin to ask yourself; where’s real damage here?
To date I’ve been a staunch supporter of the wikileaks idea but recently, given my role in strategic communications, I could not help but consider seriously that what was unfolding before me was a massive integrated communications exercise – that is, a global campaign. The assumption is that it is a wikileaks led global campaign. I decided to see what would happen if I considered the whole thing to be a global campaign led by another entity or group. After thinking, writing and analyzing from this changed perspective, I have been given a few things to dwell on and I’ve decided to share them. All this leaked ‘private’ data has the clear implication that it comes without the usual spin. The US government have even gone to great pains to position these cables as anything but propaganda - as the painful truth laid bare. But why? From this point onwards, for the point of this article and as a general exercise in balance, I am a total #wikileaks #cablegate skeptic.
The days before the megaleak…
The cables that have been pulled out by the media as ‘damaging’ or that have been most heavily reported are worthy of looking at as very clever propaganda and spin. If only because that is the last thing they appear to be. Consider this first general message that we heard repeatedly in much of the world’s media before the ‘release’ between the dates, 24th to 29th November approx:
The USA say they don’t know what’s being released and don’t know what the cables will say.
If this is true, why then did this not stop them very publicly ringing the whole world ‘in a panic’ and spilling their guts, like naughty children? Seriously ask yourself, where’s the benefit of this? Where? To my mind, there’s only one benefit. Public Relations.
That may seem obvious. But not damage control Public Relations. It’s PR promoting the upcoming leaks.
If you were on Twitter in the days before the leak of these documents and were interested in wikileaks you would probably have discovered that the wikileaks hashtag (#wikileaks) was not appearing as a ‘Trending Topic’ on Twitter and wasn’t always appearing in Twitter searches. Trending Topics on Twitter lets people quickly know about the big conversations that are going on - these are often global. A trending topic always brings in many more Tweeple who check out the topic and join the conversation. So at a time when it should have been constantly trending as a global topic that many people were talking about, wikileaks remained hidden from the view of most except those who’d stumbled across the conversation*. This infuriated the opinion-leading wikileaks supporting Tweeters and helped cement the concept that there was actually ‘something to hide’ and that the larger powers that be were working on suppression and censorship of wikileaks (wikileaks is also a user name on Twitter and apparently they can't 'trend' which may be some explantion here*). It reinforced the myth about the upcoming cables and their veracity. It made many freedom-loving democratic supporting Tweeters go into overdrive, promoting the upcoming cable leaks on behalf of the US government. This is an aspect of a campaign that is referred to in my circles as ‘user generated content’. Job well done. A lovely interactive addition to a well orchestrated global teaser campaign - perhaps the biggest in history.
The teaser aspect of the campaign had other components. An interesting one was the apparent issuing of D-Notices (Defence Department notices asking newspapers and media to refrain from publishing anything damaging to the national interest) rumoured to have been distributed to the media before the leaks came out, by British and Australian governments (and possibly others). This was first disclosed in a message that originated from @wikileaks on Twitter. Wikileaks posted it. Whether these notices were served or not, the job of the rumour served a similar purpose to the Twitter strategy ; the D Notice rumour was designed to imply Government fear at the upcoming secret information dump, which of-course inspires much public curiosity and interest in their content. A dual advantage that plays to the prejudices of the Twitterati is that D Notices in an electronic age are useless given the distribution of information via multiple new media channels. Attempting to serve them reinforces the negative preconceptions the wikileaks supporting Twitteratti have of the government generally – govt seem like bumbling fools who don’t understand the interwebs. One thing I found curious at the point before the document dump was the fact that Australian media organizations were not privy to the leaks, yet they were served D notices. Why were the D notices served if Aussie media had no access to the cables at that stage? And if they weren’t served – why did wikileaks say they were?
The day of the megaleak…
On the day, the cables were released in a coordinated effort that would make a global brand manager extremely proud. The old ‘we don’t know what’s coming’ message was continued but included (for me anyway) some confusing aspects. This from one of the first Australian articles in The Age, Monday Morning 29th November:
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-may-show-us-has-helped-terrorist-group-20101126-18avu.html
“…A senior Israeli official familiar with the material, who asked to remain anonymous said it included diplomatic cables sent to Washington from US embassies throughout the world…”
(I interject here with some questions: How is the ‘anonymous’ Israeli official familiar with the material that even America says it’s not familiar with? This is particularly interesting when you consider that the cables were only disclosed to the world perhaps an hour before the published time of the article. Perhaps the official is a Mossad agent. Fine. How did The Age contact the official so quickly and then write the article? The global release happened at 8.30AM AEST. The Age wasn’t one of the world newspapers to receive the cables from Wikileaks prior to the worldwide disclosure date and thus have prior access to the cable content. That privilege was only given to Le Monde in France, Der Spiegel in Germany, The New York Times in the US, The Guardian in Britain and El Pais in Spain. So how did the article come together? Apparently it was written by a staff journalist Jason Koutsoukis who is based in Israel.)
“…The official said the US embassy said the documents were not highly classified.
''The Americans said they view the leak very seriously,'' the official said. ''They don't know when they will be released on the Internet and what exactly they say, but they didn't want us to read about it in the newspapers.''
The Americans say the documents aren’t highly classified but in the same breath this article and many others you can find, also say that they “don’t know when they will be released and what exactly they will say…” So they don’t know what the content will be, except, ah, that it’s not highly classified, but just in case, they go ahead and disclose to foreign governments and diplomats what it MIGHT BE before the fact…And they do it very publicly, days in advance. This doesn’t make sense at first glance unless you look at it as a communications exercise. Seen that way, it’s a massive worldwide integrated PR campaign designed to give maximum impact and imply full legitimacy to the much hyped release of the ‘secret’ #cablegate ‘disclosures’.
Now let’s have a look at the cables themselves. It’s only been three days and there is much more content yet to appear, but what have we learned so far? Let’s concentrate on the more ‘inflammatory’ or newsworthy cables. And let’s ask:
1. Is there a benefit to the USA or anyone else in these?
2. How well coordinated are the messages?
We’ll start with China. If you look at any reported cables regarding China what we see has a number of strategic purposes. We first see an obvious face saving way of disclosing to the world Chinese activities and thus continuing to position them as the bad guys, without having to do so directly. We learn that the Chinese Politburo really did authorize the hacking into Google. The outtake of this is that the Chinese generally have aspirations to continue this cyber-warfare against western interests. Other cables regarding China point to their ‘concern’ over North Korea, calling it ‘spoilt child’ and indicating they wont intervene if North Korea descended into chaos. This is good news for the USA who have harboured aspirations of regime change for that State for a while. This cable is an example of a warlike divide and conquer strategy in regard to its impact on China and North Korea relations and its content will keep anyone in the US and other western allies comfortable that American intervention in North Korea wont raise the ire of China. Brilliant.
Let’s look at Turkey, in relation to the PKK, the domestic group labeled as a Terrorist organization by the EU, Israel, Germany, Britain, USA and Australia. Various news outlets have basically cut and pasted the same article (here we see repeated messaging we’re looking for*) and mentioned the following, word for word:
“… A report in Israel's Jerusalem Post said the US military documents refer to the PKK as ''warriors for freedom and Turkish citizens and say that the US had set free arrested PKK members in Iraq…”
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=A+report+in+Israel%27s+Jerusalem+Post+said+the+US+military+documents+refer+to+the+PKK+as+%27%27warriors+for+freedom+and+Turkish+citizens%27%27+and+say+that+the+US+had+set+free+arrested+PKK+members+in+Iraq.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
*(it’s pretty clear…in fact most articles you see on these cables are mass cut and paste jobs. Check it out yourself. Nothing investigative, just the same party line, all over the world, delivered at the same time. That’s coordinated messaging, pure and simple).
The cables refer to these Turkish separatist Kurd fighters as ‘freedom fighters’. What is implied in this cable is actually good news for Brand America: it’s America fighting the honest and fair fight for the oppressed. (However, whether this is a conspiracy or not, this is clear proof and acknowledgment by the Americans or any others who might be behind these leaks that the American concept of ‘terrorism’ is a matter of perspective). But add to this the revelations that Turkey was actually covertly supporting Al Qaida in Iraq and allegations their Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is “exceptionally dangerous”, you build even more American citizens support for the covert American support of the PKK and some nice public justification to “bomb the shit outta them Turks”. Add a dash of anti-Semitism from the Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan and you also have Israeli public support too. This cable shows support for an agenda here and unquestionable justification of it handed to us in a ‘leak’.
The Iran strategy is similar, although a more prominent thread in the cables than the Turkish. The divide and conquer idea is used again when we hear of Arab allies urging the USA to strike Iran. This cable maintains the distrust and distance between these neighbours. The message contends that Arab countries including Saudi Arabia are very concerned about their neighbour and would like America to deal with the Iran issue quickly. This reinforces the American public perception that they are the World Cops and implies that something needs to be done. President Ahmadinejad is even compared to Hitler in the Iran cables and the whole region is crying, he must be stopped! ‘We need to go to war with Iran’ is the essence of this message. If you think about how this message might otherwise have been delivered to the public and the world, any other way would be a tough sell given the general anti-war feelings of the citizenry. This way, it’s shown to be a necessary job that America has to do to continue the fight for Justice and what’s right. Great brand values for Brand America.
Would Julian Assange the incredibly intelligent and politically savvy democratic freedom fighter really have missed these blatantly obvious points?
The personal assaults on many prominent leaders and powerbrokers seen in the cables so far is designed to ally citizens to the views of the USA and win a little respect for being keen observers of the reality. In every case I can see, the US is merely reflecting the view of the domestic or wider international population. In relation to Zimbabwe and Mugabe there’s nothing new here except to offer excuses as to why the US have done nothing. In relation to the British coalition and Gordon Brown - the views of the American admin are simply reflecting the views of the British people. The effect of this is to have British nodding in agreement of their assessments and beginning to think of those Yanks as a little more clever and informed than previously thought. In relation to Australia, they consider the Aussies a ‘rock solid’ ally. That’s gotta make us feel good and partially supportive of them. They never said much bad about us. Maybe that’s because Assange is an Aussie and if they said mean stuff about Australians we’d rush to support our mate Julian, as we would in any situation with another Aussie under attack. Perhaps cables will come out and say Kevin Rudd was hated by all of Canberra. We’ll wait and see.
After dissecting the general campaign messaging so far and its construction it is now appropriate to look at what the brief for this campaign might have been.
The primary target market - not the politically informed.
The informed always ask questions. The primary target market looks to be the masses for whom politics is often last on their list of interests. They will be attracted to the campaign by the headline ‘gossip’ and ’secret’ elements of the cables and its prominence will mean they can’t ignore it anyway.
The secondary target market - is the politically informed.
They will respond to the same things as the primary market but as they were the first onto wikileaks and the cables, they were most useful in pre-promoting the campaign, through tweets and other online discussion. After cable disclosure, they will get a feeling of anticlimax, having expected much more, as they did with the megaleaks around the Iraq and Afghanistan wars earlier this year. But by then the big ball is rolling and their questions will be hard to hear over the shouting…
The single-minded proposition
‘Leaking’ is bad for everyone and must be stopped at all costs.
The desired outtakes
1.‘Leaking’ really is a dangerous thing that reckless strange people do – even those who were insulted by the content of the cables are condemning Julian Assange – heck - not even Equador will have him in their country! It’s bad to do this stuff! Bad for democracy, bad for the world! We need to stop guys like this!
2. America, even behind the scenes, is just trying to get things right and help the world. They are not as bad as I thought. In fact I can see why those diplomats said that stuff about (insert name of nation leader or minister). I tend to agree! I actually have a more favourable view of America now.
Building the wikileaks brand
The really genius aspect of this whole thing is the building of the wikileaks brand which began around 2006 / 07. By rather quickly gaining world prominence, the brand has in marketing terms, gained the global ‘first mover’ advantage. It’s been successfully globally positioned as the genuine article. What this means is that as long as it remains as a conduit for leaks, with or without Assange, it could cement itself as the trusted brand in the sector, and become the portal for the vast majority of leaks from all sources worldwide, effectively shutting out new players who can be easily discredited without major support or who just wont have the same brand cache as wikileaks. Just think about what that means if wikileaks is the conspiracy this article suggests it could be. Can you think of a better way to globally gather raw intelligence on corporates and governments and individuals?
On the question of whether Julian Assange is a part of this conspiracy or a genuine freedom fighter, I have this theory: he has been played. I think that the cables, the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs were largely genuine but peppered with a small percentage of juicy morsels of headline grabbing information (real) and disinformation. I also think Bradley Manning, the ALLEGED source of the leaks from within the US military was also played, allowed to access the files after being targeted as a person likely to dissent. They were both played like a Pagannini. Now they are both suffering the consequences. Bradley is apparently in jail awaiting trial, in solitary confinement. Julian is in hiding being chased by Interpol for alleged rape and molestation – which by the way is a shakier story than the one about the dog who ate my homework (and while we are at it, when was the last time Interpol issued through global networks any international warrant for the arrest of someone merely ACCUSED of rape?)
The very dangerous thing here is that if wikileaks is indeed a conspiracy in plane sight then it must be designed as the first stage in shutting down the democratic freedoms we have enjoyed through unrestricted online communication. If there are conspirators they are looking to position anyone who discloses socially important information as being incredibly reckless and as they have in Julian’s case, a potential rapist too. Remember that he has not been charged with anything in relation to anything. All the talk is of ‘potential charges’ so far. He has not broken any US laws. It is not illegal to reveal the truth. However, the USA has stated through Attorney General Eric Holder:
“…to the extent that there are gaps in our law, we will move to close those gaps…”
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=545657&vId=
Current law in democracies allows journalists to use leaked documents to create stories that expose truth and uncover corruption and uphold their most valuable function in society. Talk of changing this fundamental basis of law and journalistic status quo to prevent this from occurring is extremely worrying to a (supposedly) democratic society. What’s worse, in America, the journalism profession is letting it happen without a whimper. The major problem is that mainstream journalists are simply not doing their jobs because they are not incentivized to do so. Their incentive is to tow the party line. Their boss is buddies with the politicians. Or they are buddies with the politicians who feed them dirty scraps under the grand dining table of power and like a pathetic cowered dog, they accept them without question, for to question the scraps means they will go hungry. I am disgusted at the journalism profession in general for this lack of backbone and character. As a general exercise all people should look at all news as being not general interest or current affairs but a message or part of a campaign they are supposed to absorb and accept. Either delivered by a corporation or by a government or in a lot of cases the dark intersection of these two. (That’s another article altogether).
We need to be fully aware of what the motivations might be when the suggestions that wikileaks be ‘blacklisted’ or censored, or removed from the internet or even designated as a terrorist organization as has been discussed in these last days. This last point is particularly worrying as it was the one thing I was looking for as a final justification before actually writing this article. For me, it is a clear exposure of the strategy. Terrorist organizations have clearly stated aims to use violence and the fear of it to create and instill fear in civilian populations in order that they leverage their governments to create change that suits the terrorists, when it suits them most. Wikileaks, whether a construct of powerful shady characters or a more valiant cause, uses information to instill fear in governments and corporates to create change that suits citizens, when it suits them most. This is not terrorism. If it is then many of us may be branded as terrorists. Hell of a way to radicalize the general population.
Whether or not the wikileaks phenomenon is a huge disinformation operation orchestrated by undisclosed entities does not change my next point. I have been writing about the internet and its use as a democratic tool now for about four years on and off. The people of the world need to be aware that we have a massive democratic opportunity in connected digital media and that this puts people in positions of traditionally high power and vested interests (particularly the media and government) at a huge disadvantage if we are allowed to band together and share information or human intelligence (to use a spooks term). If our internet freedoms are allowed to flourish and continue, it will literally change the world for the better by rebalancing the power equation in favour of the vast majority and democratizing education. By simply being allowed to talk about what we like, when we like and with anyone we like across borders and physical divides, we have the world’s most powerful democratic tool at our disposal – you could even call it a weapon if necessary - and not many of us realize it. Wikileaks shows us there is a real assault on democratic freedom happening right now. We can’t let go of it. We need to use it. Or lose it.
UPDATE
Considering the concept of Julian Assange the forward thinker being played, it is certainly also possible that he has played the players. He may have agreed to work with the shadows from early on (see the split with cryptome founder John Young over allegations JA was working for CIA) since he may have considered the serious possibility of his organization being shut down some time in the future and the subsequent concept of his own good self then disappearing into thin air. Rather than wait for that he has worked as one of ‘them’ to this point while raising his profile concurrently. In the meantime he has accessed real damaging info and set it aside in his encrypted insurance file. This move preserves his skin - even to the extent of giving him active protection by intelligence agencies who know if he gets hit by a bus, the show is over. If this is true, the delicious thing to consider now is that while he turns rogue on those he always wanted to expose from the start, they are forced to protect him. That’s genius strategy. And I do think that Julian Assange, the Double Double? Agent is a genius.
*this does not explain why #cablegate has not been trending in the days since the leaks.
Posts
