Only a fraction of the more than 250,000 cables have been released so far, and just a few of those were related to the “climate” negotiations last year. But even what little has come out thus far — analysts are calling it the “tip of the iceberg” — is raising eyebrows and generating more anti-U.S. sentiment around the globe. And the revelations certainly won’t help the COP16 “climate change” negotiations in Cancun right now, either.
It turns out that, at the behest of the Central Intelligence Agency and the American “intelligence” apparatus, the U.S. State Department sent out secret diplomatic cables seeking intelligence on United Nations bosses, foreign officials, and others. News reports claimed such an operation — basically using diplomats with immunity as spies — could be considered a violation of international law.
The State Department, while conceding that its staff does gather information around the world, was insistent that American diplomats should not be considered spies. But among the information they were collecting was data such as credit card numbers, frequent flyer numbers, telephone records, internet passwords, biometrics data, "vulnerabilities," and other “biographical” information. It was also looking for dirt on other governments and officials.
In terms of the climate shenanigans revealed in the cables, the U.K. Guardian reported: “Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.”
The newspaper described some of the revelations in the diplomatic cables, saying they show “how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial ‘Copenhagen accord.’”
Some of the comments in the cables reviewed by The New American would seem to indicate that, for the U.S. government, this sort of “negotiating” is simply business as usual. Discussing the Dutch government’s ploy to “solicit support” for the climate “Accord” by sending messages to countries receiving “development assistance,” a cable signed by ambassador Fay Levin at the American embassy in the Netherlands to the U.S. State Department in D.C. is very revealing. “This is an unprecedented move for the Dutch government, which traditionally recoils at any suggestion to use aid money as political leverage,” it said.
At a meeting of Dutch negotiators, ambassadors were apparently “clamoring” for guidance on how to sign poor countries up to the agreement, the cable reported. “However, [Dutch Foreign Ministry climate negotiator Sanne] Kaasjager said the Netherlands would find it difficult to make association with the Accord a condition to receive climate financing.” In other words, using so-called “climate financing” as a bribe to third-world regimes — even if it meant they would agree to the climate deal — was not something Dutch climate bosses were too excited about.
Judging from the cable, some developing-country governments were still not totally on board with the so-called “accord.” Mainly this was because they weren’t getting enough say in where the loot would be spent, and because some of the climate plunder was apparently coming out of existing foreign-aid budgets. So, the Dutch government thought of a possible solution — meet with the “recipients (sic) countries to address these issues head-on rather than wait for them to surface as a PR disaster later,” the cable explained.
Of course, U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Fay Levin was not happy about the leak. “I cannot vouch for the authenticity of any one of these documents. But I can say that the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential. And we condemn it,” she said in a statement posted online. “Diplomats must engage in frank discussions with their colleagues, and they must be assured that these discussions will remain private.”
Levin strongly condemned WikiLeaks and said the U.S. regime was moving “aggressively” to prevent a similar mishap. “Honest dialogue — within governments and between them — is part of the basic bargain of international relations,” she claimed. “In the United States, [diplomats’ internal reports] are one element out of many that shape our policies, which are ultimately set by the President and the Secretary of State.” Congress, apparently, gets no say.
Then there was a cable from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a country that generally mocked the warmists in Copenhagen. “Saudi officials are very eager to obtain investment credits for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and other technology transfer projects that will only become available once an agreement has been reached,” the embassy cable boasted. The document also discussed more technology transfers, more foreign investment, and “a U.S. commitment to help Saudi Arabia with its economic diversification efforts” as goodies that might make the Islamic regime come onboard with the “climate” agreement.
Cables dealing with “climate change” and the island-nation of the Maldives basically show the Maldivian regime promising to support the “Copenhagen Accord” in exchange for U.S. taxpayer money. The “tangible assistance,” as the regime referred to it, would allegedly be used to finance various pet projects such as a deeper harbor.
Why a nation supposedly on the brink of disappearing under the waves needed a deeper harbor was not explained. How the depth of a harbor is related to “climate change” was not mentioned either. But either way, once the money started to flow, other nations would realize "the advantages to be gained by compliance" with the climate agreement, a Maldivian official promised U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing.
When Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed spoke to The New American magazine at the Copenhagen summit last year, he was asked about his alarmist claims regarding the disappearance of his nation due to alleged warming and rising seas. However, one of the world’s foremost experts on sea levels, Swedish oceanographer and Stockholm University Professor Niklas Morner, had recently been in Copenhagen to discuss his findings from a trip to the Maldives. He had been measuring the sea levels there for decades. And he reported no unusual or dangerous rise in ocean levels.
President Nasheed’s response to Morner’s studies consisted mostly of inaccurate statements about a Pope killing Galileo, an attack on the Swedish expert’s methodology, and a reference to the moon landing. Finally, at a loss for words, Nasheed simply said: "[Morner’s] attacks are not even worthy of a response." But “climate funds” in exchange for supporting the U.S. position on “global warming,” evidently, are worthy of a response.
In a cable about a conversation with European Union climate boss Connie Hedegaard, the prospect of bribing nations to support the agenda was revealed even more clearly, though this time, it was the EU making suggestions. Hedegaard wanted to know, first of all, if the United States would need to engage in "creative accounting" to meet its climate-financing pledges.
Next, EU climate chief Hedegaard “suggested the AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) countries ‘could be our best allies’ given their need for financing,” according to the cable. And indeed, given the AOSIS’ vocal and aggressive demands for more money, the analysis is probably correct. But the deal really would work both ways: The island regimes agree to the deal based on bribes offered, and the “rich” countries’ regimes get to impose all sorts of economy — killing taxes and regulations on their populations. A win-win situation for everyone — except, of course, for the people.
If a private American company (that wasn’t well connected) was caught discussing espionage, bribery, and extortion so candidly in an effort to further its agenda, the firm and responsible individuals would almost certainly be prosecuted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. But for governments, including those ruling from D.C. and Brussels, such practices seem to be normal and acceptable. To add just a little more irony, government apologists and officials are now calling for the prosecution of WikiLeaks for exposing the scandals. So much for the purported “consensus,” anyway.