Nexus - 1802 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

statements, to constantly threatening war with Iran and propaganda effort, however, is in depicting the other neighbours, or to propagandising their belief that documents as "factual assessments" of the on-the- Iran is making nuclear weapons (something which has ground reality, which they are not. The documents are never been proven). Thus, the leaks do not "hurt" factual in how they represent the views of those who Israel's image, because Israel's image internationally is | wrote them, which does not mean that they are factual already so abysmal and despicable and because Israeli in their substance. There is a difference, and diplomats and politicians are generally as brazen in acknowledging this difference is incredibly important in what they say publicly as in what they say to each other, _ both the exposure of propaganda and the assessment of so Israel's image has largely remained the same. Of _ truth. course, Israeli leaders—political and military—are using , he leaks to suggest that they "vindicate" their The Truth about Diplomacy perspective on Iran as a threat, which of course is an Craig Murray is one voice that should be heard on this absurd propaganda ploy, the exact same technique issue. Murray is a former British Ambassador to aken on by the corporate media in taking the cables at — Uzbekistan, who made a name for himself in exposing ‘ace value. intelligence from Uzbekistan related While Iran has slammed these to Al-Qaeda as entirely unreliable, WikiLeaks releases as western due to the methods of torture (such propaganda aimed at Iran, this The documents as boiling people alive) which were statement itself should be taken as a are factual in how used to get the information. This orm of propaganda. After all, Iran h h intelligence was passed to the CIA claimed that it is "friends" with all its t ey represent the and Ml6—intelligence which Murray neighbours—a claim which is an views of those said was “factually incorrect”. When istorical and present falsity. Iran, like Murray expressed his concerns with al states, uses propaganda to who wrote them, the higher-u ps in the British dttempt to battle the spread ot| Which does not aie g “for talking. about misinformation and propaganda, mean that they are "human rights". Murray was told by myself included, must remain highly factual in their the British Foreign & Commonwealth critical of media representations Office that he had one week in and campaigns against Iran, of substance. There which to resign, and he was hich th J I i . ‘ hreatened ith ibl firmly in the targets of America's Isa difference, and prosecution of prison time for imperial ambitions; this is no acknowledging revealing "state secre mm He secret. Yet, there is nothing in : : was subsequently removed from he current batch of WikiLeaks this difference is ambassadorial position, and releases that strikes me as is incredibly as since become something of a inauthentic in relation to Iran, Q political activist. In short, Murray especially those documents important... is exactly the type of diplomat a person should want: honest. Bu e was also exactly the type o pertaining to the perspectives of western diplomats and Arab eaders. No doubt they have diplomat that western imperia hese perspectives simply powers don't want: honest. because they reflect the policy priorities of America and In the midst of the latest WikiLeaks releases o he West itself, not because they are factual in their diplomatic documents, Craig Murray was asked to write substance. In this, we must decipher between an article for the Guardian regarding his interpretation o! authenticity and accuracy. the issue. As Murray later noted, the paper placed his Analysts must not only critically assess the article, largely reduced, hidden in the middle of a long authenticity of documents (and the sources from which compendium of various commentaries on WikiLeaks. they come), but also, and perhaps even more Murray, however, posted the full version on his website. importantly, they must critically analyse the In the article, he begins by assessing the claims of interpretation of those documents. So while | do not — government officials around the world, particularly in doubt the authenticity of documents pertaining to the United States, that WikiLeaks exposes the US to western and Middle Eastern perceptions of Iran (as they "harm", that it puts lives at risk, and that the leaks will fit in with the wider geopolitical realities of the region), | "encourage Islamic extremism". Most especially, he it is the interpretations of the documents that | view as assesses the notion that "government secrecy is active propaganda efforts on the part of western essential to keep us all safe". Murray explains that, governments and media. The method of this having been a diplomat for over 20 years, he is very propaganda effort, however, is in depicting the documents as "factual assessments" of the on-the- ground reality, which they are not. The documents are factual in how they represent the views of those who wrote them, which does not mean that they are factual in their substance. There is a difference, and acknowledging this difference is incredibly important in both the exposure of propaganda and the assessment of truth. they represent the views of those mean that they are factual in their substance. There is a difference, and acknowledging is incredibly important... NEXUS ¢ I5 The documents are factual in how who wrote them, which does not this difference FEBRUARY - MARCH 2011 www.nexusmagazine.com