Take WikiLeaks aromatic pheromones with caution
Published:Friday | June 3, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Predictably, The Gleaner WikiLeaks revelations capture the imagination. In politically polarised Jamaica, with secrecy the norm, people constantly seek validation for their hunches, suspicions and prejudices. To garner the truth, however, from the mass of comment, opinion and conjecture these cables present, is fraught with difficulty.
Consider the diplomatic function. From time immemorial representatives, envoys or diplomats locate in foreign jurisdictions for a raft of reasons. Chief among these is the need for states to understand the bases of the thinking and policy of friend and foe alike. In mid-19th century Britain, Lord Palmerston uttered the oft-quoted maxim: "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests".
This remains an eternal truth. Pursuing the perceived interests of the diplomat's home country is of primary importance. It is unhelpful to take diplomatic communications at mere face value.
Who is the functionary composing these communications?
At what level does he/she sit in the diplomatic mission? Is the originator of the cable a career diplomat versed in the intricacies of foreign affairs? Is the cable a composite product of a group including intelligence gatherers, spies, commercial attachés or merely those trawling the cocktail circuit? There are more questions, not least of which includes the level of importance the sending state places upon the country from which the communications originate. What prejudices does the cable composer deeply harbour?
Is he smart and experienced, possessed of sound judgement, or a mere journeyman, neophyte apprentice on a quest of promotion to greener pastures? Surely, the United States does not accredit its prime analysts to Jamaica as opposed to say Russia, China, the United Kingdom or Brazil. So there it is; the general question becomes: what is the analytic capacity and understanding of the society the operatives and mission possess?
The US undoubtedly places importance on the problem of illicit drugs and trans-shipment from South America. It sees the Caribbean as an entrept, hence even if Jamaica is of lowly rank among US diplomatic missions, high-level agents do operate here.
Reagan lost the 'War on Drugs', so continuing US expenditure and resources devoted to the DEA and combating organised crime give us a hint of its priority. Furthermore, published accounts on the Shower Posse's US operations is the stuff of gangster movies writ large. This stuff is important to the US. It has become even more so since 9/11 because both the physical and money channels drug cartels create can be exploited by terrorist networks.
The question for us is whether high-level operatives assigned this subject matter would be communicating by diplomatic cable - I daresay they won't. They would not be directly in touch with Hilary Clinton's State Department.
This is not to say that some of their intelligence did not feed into the leaked cables. An interesting communiqué published in Monday's Gleaner read: "Jamaica's proximity to, and a large expatriate population in, the US, Canada and the UK underscores the need to ensure that Islamist extremism does not grow in a nation struggling to control its staggering crime rate." While Jamaica has an anti-terrorism act, it goes on, the country is "largely unprepared to address a real threat". The cable concluded: "A societal trend of young men who are quick to resort to acts of violence, and a history of high-profile terrorist operations perpetrated by individuals with Jamaican roots, should raise concerns and awareness that history could repeat itself."
Like all futuristic scenarios of this kind, these opinions are conjecture. Leaving aside the sloppiness of characterising Jamaica as having 'proximity' to the UK, is the raw intelligence and analysis sound? Can one credibly suggest a strong and growing Islamist Extremism in the land of Rasta as a potentially high probability occurrence? Does this analyst know that in this land, people eat curry goat, sell votes, and yet mark their 'X' for the competitor? Is Jamaica anymore unprepared "to address a real threat" than the USA was on September 11? Do shedding shoes and body scanning X-rays truly make us safer? Does a Jamaican-born male who migrates at age five, really embody the Jamaican psyche, or is it that his Jamaican identity is a choice made particularly attractive by his being deemed 'non-be-longer' in his adopted society? Are these roots therefore 'rootical', or metaphorical? How does one link potential growth of 'Islamist extremism' to a 'staggering crime rate'? And as to history repeating itself, can I borrow a phrase and assert 'sensational cable composition'?
Interesting then is what aspects of the intelligence gathered by high-level operatives inform the cables' composers? How did Jamaican contacts influence opinions expressed in dispatches? What motivated these contacts? Did they have ulterior motives, political, business or other interests? Would a terrorist threat squeeze aid funds through the strainer's clogged muslin gauze? Has embassy staff gorged on pseudo-intellectual babble or disinformation? These are all, if not imponderables, at least issues of importance to contemplate.
Clearly, analysis of these cables ought not to be confined to what they say about whom or about specific attitudes and perceived alliances. The analyst, historian or researcher interpreting these cables would first group them as to their origin, subject matter, timing and issues pertinent to the period of their composition and dispatch. Analysis might then proceed as John Le Carre's Smiley, head of British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, might do. This is not as simple a task as might first appear.
Actually, we can all agree the revelations of WikiLeaks cables provide a reflectively piercing looking glass, yet they are like aromatic pheromones to guard bees at the hive entrance. Bees' instincts, once not rendered faulty by wax moths or foul brood disease, are sufficiently discerning to recognise the real thing - truth.
We humans, however, possess no such instinct. On the contrary, prejudices of all sorts lead us to strange places. So take WikiLeaks as prescribed: once daily with food, some salt, but no alcohol!