DIPLOMATIC TRASH OR CONTROLLED LEAK?

The governments of all states mentioned in the despatches reacted to the new WikiLeaks of diplomatic correspondence. In general, their reaction was reserved: no one is going to disrupt relations with the United States.

But the main target of official criticism was Julian Assange, a computer hacker and founder of the WikiLeaks website. He claims that there are only five of them and they have published more secret documents than the entire world press. WikiLeaks does not name its sources and so it is difficult to clearly say whether there are powerful forces behind these publications. Some suggest that the leaks are published in order to undermine the international image of the United States. Others, conversely, believe that it is all happening with the knowledge of the US intelligence service. The latter version is gaining supporters.

The National Interest, an American magazine, writes in this respect: "The Obama administration criticises WikiLeaks sharply. The disclosure of secrets, it says, is harmful to US national security. It could threaten relations with friendly leaders etc. However, is this true? Or are the leaks in fact simply part of a carefully organized plot by the US government?"

The magazine encourages contemplation of the content of the published papers in which Saudi Arabia allegedly asks America to cut off the head of the Iranian snake, and Egyptian President Husni Mubarak says it is common knowledge that Iran supports terrorism, but he cannot say so publicly.

"What is the point of such an operation?" The National Interests asks, giving several arguments: "First of all, these documents help to reassure Americans, showing them that the authorities are well aware of everything. President Obama cannot openly call Karzai a pathologically corrupt loony, but he and his emissaries obviously think that. They also have no illusions about Iran or North Korea. Thus, this destroys the myth that Obama is naive and incompetent. This is the first reason why the administration secretly approves the leak."

However, according to the American magazine, that is not all. "Most of the foreign leaders quoted in the WikiLeaks documents say things that are quite obvious. It has been clear for many years that Saudi Arabia and other moderate countries in the Middle East would be happy for America and Israel to deal a devastating blow to the Iranian mullahs. But they were afraid to say so publicly. WikiLeaks did this for them. At the same time, the Obama administration increases psychological pressure on Tehran. It must be remembered that a key Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated a few days ago. The message is clear: those who work for the regime will have to pay for it," the article goes on to say.

The magazine says that the WikiLeaks publications are an almost official way to make threats, while pretending that you regret the violation of secrecy. "It is a strong move. If this is true, then Obama is far more insidious than anyone could have imagined," the writer concludes.

Judging by the picture that emerges in an analysis of the main figures mentioned in the dispatches, the American magazine's arguments do not appear to be without foundation. Assange got hold of more than 250,000 "documents" dispatched from or to 250 US embassies and consulates around the world. The country mentioned most of all in the American diplomatic correspondence was Iraq - 15,365 telegrams and reports. But in the dispatches that had been published as our magazine went to press, it was not Iraq, but Iran that was mentioned most often. Note: the Arabs want Iran to be bombed, while Azerbaijan, Turkey and even Russia are also trying to harm Tehran. This is while there is a convergence of views between Tehran and its neighbours, one manifestation being the recent breakthrough at the Baku summit of Caspian states. It turns out that someone is very interested in a deterioration in relations between Iran and the other regional countries.

Deserving special attention is the fact that of the more than 230 dispatches that had been published as our magazine went to press, more than 70 per cent mention Muslim countries. It seems that not just Sunnis and Shiites, but even countries of the Muslim world that are far from being hostile are nevertheless intriguing against each other. An attempt was even made to contrast Azerbaijan with fraternal Turkey. It is hard to believe that computer hacker Assange is the one wishing such things.

Of the letters and telegrams sent to the State Department from US diplomatic offices in different countries, the WikiLeaks diplomatic dossiers are dominated by messages from the American embassy in Turkey (7,918). Turkey itself is mentioned 30 times in the dispatches published on 28 November. They are all capable of undermining the confidence upon which the country is trying to build relations with its neighbours. The question arises: is Julian Assange so interested in the Turkish authorities' policy of "zero problems with neighbours" dissolving into a farce called "so many problems with the neighbours"?

The leaks relating to North Korea also attract attention. It turns out that China wishes to see the Korean peninsula united under the leadership of South Korea. According to this document, the Chinese told their South Korean counterparts that they do not see much value in the DPRK as a buffer state, but a US military presence in the north of the peninsula appears to be undesirable to Beijing. Is this not a reason for Pyongyang to fall out with Beijing, which continues to provide North Korea with economic and diplomatic support?

As for the South Caucasus, it is noteworthy that of the three regional states, Azerbaijan - the only Muslim country in the region - is mentioned most often in the dispatches. The presidential press service of Azerbaijan denied the statements attributed by WikiLeaks to President Ilham Aliyev. "These materials are an open provocation aimed at damaging Azerbaijan's relations with its neighbours and creating distrust between the heads of state," was its response. The press office stresses that the Azerbaijani leader's vocabulary does not contain the jargon and the sudden emotional evaluations that were mentioned on WikiLeaks.

For our part, we should add that the absence of jargon in Ilham Aliyev's lexicon, his correct style and clear presentation of ideas have repeatedly been remarked upon by politicians and foreign journalists who have met him. This raises questions about the authenticity of the statements attributed to Ilham Aliyev in the alleged documents of diplomatic correspondence.

"The Azerbaijan Republic has never interfered in matters of the internal politics of neighbouring states and has always pursued a clear policy that serves to preserve and develop good neighbourly relations with regional states. In all meetings and speeches, the Azerbaijani president expresses his thoughts based on national interests. The country's foreign policy has always been independent, permanent, logical and sincere," the message says in conclusion.

Apparently, the consistent and logical foreign policy and the policy of harmonizing relations with its neighbours, proclaimed by Azerbaijan under Heydar Aliyev, raise concern in interested players of world geopolitics. Analysts say that while Armenia is called a Russian "outpost" and Georgia the "51st American state", Azerbaijan is pursuing the most independent policy of the region's countries.

It is clear to the naked eye that the statements about Turkey attributed to the President of Azerbaijan, are contrary to reality. How is it that Azerbaijan does not want Turkey to become an energy hub if the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline run through its territory? As a major potential supplier to Nabucco, Baku is not opposed to the pipeline going to Europe through Turkey. Moreover, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey are building the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, which, as Turkish President Abdullah Gul said, will connect Beijing to London. Accordingly, Baku is promoting Turkey's transformation not only into an energy hub, but also one for transport.

We can also see a desire to cause a rift in relations between Azerbaijan and Russia, apparently in order to obstruct Moscow, which recently took the initiative with moves to settle the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

According to political analysts, it is no accident that the WikiLeaks documents focused on South Caucasian subjects on the eve of the OSCE summit in Astana.

"They failed to put pressure on Azerbaijan, but they can create unnecessary problems in discussions about the fundamental document on the Nagornyy Karabakh settlement. Perhaps it is correct to react in accordance with the proverb about the caravan and the dog. Humanity has not yet invented other recipes for this particular case," said Russian political analyst Aleksey Vlasov.

Meanwhile, the countries mentioned in the publications respond with restraint, but time will tell whether they will follow Vlasov's proverb. One thing is clear: the WikiLeaks publications may leave an aftertaste, and the implications for future diplomatic relations are unpredictable. This was, apparently, the aim of those who leaked diplomatic trash into the information space.