haiti leakness

the haiti institutions (and we may wonder in what relation to the un staff and international staffs available) have announced a recount.

usually when a recount is announced we see that it happens to be confirming the suspect results, to sufficient extent.

i personally don't recall any recount with a significant positive result. for one with a negative result you only have to look at gbagbo. but there are other possible negative outcomes, usually just confirming the incredible results in a slightly different manner. the negative about such cases is more in the general loss of credibility and vulnerability of democratic participation.
(if nothing helps people tend to turn uninformed slowly, unless the repression is cataclysmic.
after all what is the use of endless dry political matters that are part of domestic politics if in the end you never have a say, and your votes don't even count)

so my prediction is that the recount , in the absence of a neutral observing regulation and independend institution for that, will confirm the results as they have been announced for the major part, actually i don't know the distribution as it stands, but i can still guess what will be the result. they will either say that there have been some mistakes and irregularitys, but that the two top candidates finished with the required votes and in the announced ordre.

or they will say martell had indeed many more votes , but still just not enough to join the race.

variations on it are 'celestin had actually a few more votes.

the usual expectation in the first two cases, should be the former presidents wife will be president, (a woman as a president being not contrary to usian publicatory campaigns), but will still be forced to share power with the sitting elites. (probably not in the least to keep agents like the mofa in place).

people with international contact as a major jobaspect, that sit still in the next are usually the XXXX from wikileaks.

if after all miss X the wouldbe president was to be shown as responsable for the forthcomong economical developments , being similar to the recent past, she and her affiliates wouldn't anymore be usefull at the next elections as much.

However, that Martelli is invited, and.. un and gov support a recount, indicate another thing.


&1 haiti


Martelli has been worked to cooperate, most probably. ofcourse this depends a lot if the recount procedure is insightfull for the observers. i would guess it is not telling about circumstances at polling stations, prefilled and overfilled boxes etc., and the complaints about the difficultys for the poor to register.

if you just see a whole heap of papers being counted, the outcome ofcourse is only what the one that last had authority over them likes.

quand on vois une masse de billet comptee seulle, le resultat surement est au goute l'authorite sur ces papiers avant.

that would mean martelli has been bought. so much for the good news, and buzzing about projecting and predicting. but honesty has me write my mind.

bought in a loose sense, he will have been prepared, worked, "We will still put you in an opportunity to do some good, and maybe next time..., you don't have the people to staff it, and you know it, bc you hardly trust any of the "qualified" people. see that you don't have an option but to work with this "political establishment". and perhaps subtle and less subtle threats.

in that case the usia would feel compelled not to implement the projected relief plans, imf will not give you a loan, we have the experience that every donor flees if a sudden change of establishment...., look at madagascar, you will be isolated, you will get bitter and try to hold on to power. anyhow we offer you this or that nice position, swiss account, future possibilitys, compromise concerning cholera or quake aid... something

for many people, and not in the least the ones that are not power hungry (is he? i guess he is inexperienced in politics over powerhungry) such arguments can be hard to counter. beside that the usual poor nation does have a more flexible attitude about what would be acceptable to agree to in terms of personal advantage in the first place.

well we gotta see what happens. if all my impressions would be confirmed, the old elite will battle for their positions in a way as to appear credible.

if otoh i am wrong, martelli could explain the public how recounting offers him and us any certainty about the electoral procedures as a whole.

he will surely however attempt such a thing (now, after i wrote this) for reasons of his own credibility and possibly that of others . i personally however don't see how with procedural transparance the people of haiti could still be fooled. the resulting analyses through media outlets representation and civilians checks will at least be juicy.

so even if such an explanation would be a good sign, we will have to regard this critically.
(is it true?).

&2 ivory coast.

higher diplomacy without any cables aside, i am glad that either the general being fedup with cheating, or the pressure exerted in the context of wikileaks and (my personal among) critics, has been putting a food in the door and mouth, for gbagbo, to once again grab the power.

the expectations on the street of such a change in power are not so high, some messy events, and most probably to many compromises (coupled with existing corruption) will impair progress. however there is a sincerity in the political field there, that appears to promise a serious attempt to put ivory coast on a higher plan.

that is perceived as promising. personally i added to that, and possibly a hotly contexted next election, bc in 4(5) years usually not so much changes, not so much can be set straight, lack of information and often experience and reluctant foreign partners (aka corporations) will hamper the alternative, Oattaras camp's, proceeding.

what do you need a cia for, if you can talk about all this:).

&3 wikileaks

now for the record i will say some things about wikileaks.

central in the discussion about the leaks is the term 'political'.

the freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of conviction and even freedom of enterprise (embarrasing and fallible feature that it is) are all "politically" targetted.

there is a word for that , 'political repression'.

hacks are used, like collateral murder and targetted killings, cyber"crime" is only crime when done by the poor.(small detail that?)

it is possible there is a factor of planning in this. after all usian diplomacy was aware of the existence of the leaked sipdis dump months ago. id we add the factor of planning, the planning appears to be to further impair constitutional freedoms by actively setting precedents before legislature, thus (confidentially, secretly) bypassing the legal trajectory that would invite a lot of discussion and publicity. unwelcome because with more publicity and information people tend to rather protect their rights then those of the rich and priviliged.

being aware of that i look at wikileaks docs in 3 ways.
1st> the original circumstance, event that led to the existence of intelligence on a subject.
this is also the material check on veracity of the content as in nearly every case people are involved, as a result of wich people know and papers wrote something about, around the topic.
an example are papers about tsvangirai or zuma, that such papers exist is indeed very probable,
that they serve as a template to inform their own services is indeed also very probable.
wich is point 2
2nd> the circumstance as it is meant to be understood by the 3 million people that had acces to such papers (and felt very proud and smart for that)
this leads to some parts , statements, and perhaps whole papers, being only usefull in an archeological and forensic way. what was original about the content, and what is accidently overlooked in that proces of censorship.
3rd> possible preparation for the greater public. this can come in several forms, what papers are published in what ordre. eg. what papers make a more incredible , incomplete, incorrect. or even impossible, and substantially exagerated impression.

through all this, freudian mistakes, choice of words etc. are indications to what sticks behind.
a very good criterium is 'do they want us to know/think this. corporations over government, the situation the papers show, (is one of todays leaklike topics furtherdown), they don't want us to think/know.

thus obvious statements like weaponssales "potential" or the example i will still quote, are more probably untouched then statements about what x or y said.

It would really be very convenient for the usia if saudi arabias potentat calls iran a 'head of a snake'. wich renders the paper (esp. regarding procedure 2 and 3) a bit unreliable.
i think my impression of that paper was it was at least procedure(mod) 2.

05madrid4026 is an example of a doc i suspected was mod3, i will tell you if i find a better example, 06ryadh9095 is one i didnt even start reading, but now i peeked, and i am not sure if the first impression it is mod3 was warranted.

reading mod3 documents is only usefull if you want to find detail, and perhaps slips of the tongue etc. the content will otherways be boring and confirming mediaprojections. since slips of the tongues etc are available all through the documents there is no special challenge in looking for them in the least interesting. the mass of documents means that my individual research will mostly be limited by my own capacity of randomness and ' first impressions'

like : oh interesting topic, or well i know sth about that and it doesnt look to dumbed down lets read it. note that i can in mod3 ways still be influenced in my picks, ofcourse it is my first consideration however wether the report appears probable and reliable.

so i came to the conclusion subtantial portions of the documents are mod1 and mod2?
well i am sure many are mod2. i see to many confirmations about shadowy players and influence of banks and corps over even the usia state to assume it was all let out on purpose.

wether some are mod1 ? i am not so sure, it was cleared for sipdis after all, but i think some are mod1 (perhaps even quite a lot) because not every document appears to be altered
to be allowed to sipdis, allthough apaprently there are standard emissions.

like part 2 about zuma, or part 2 about cammara , it is often part 2 that is missing.
that means the whole set 1-3 is checked.( >= mod2) it also means part 2 is used for the more personal detail , and sipdis unsuitable detail, zuma for example in part 2 is quite a hero if i am not mistaken. 2 about camara would in the least show to much about the connections with marocco for a broader public like sipdis. (i suppose the definite assesment to his health, amongst things like his sexual activity, would be there)


by now i can just continue into the papers and round up my todays writing.

i took notes:D

&4 specific docs i worked at
i read some about spain,
after 08madrid724 and 05madrid2588 i switched topic. except that i understood the moc of gos is an agent, and what was the real deal about chavez, (usia trying to isolate him, but still sells weapons , however with known serial numbers(to usia), and perhaps inbuild selfdestructive features etc.)
also a convincing attempt to deny the venezolans military capacity.
i think there was another juicy thing somewhere in between, however the documents appear mod2 at best.

confidential may mean 2 things i think, either it means restricted circulation, or it means 'juicified' for sipdis. sipdis people kick on being in a position to read confidential matters, so the labels confidential and nofor may aim at getting a broader public there, when like in the case of the spanish armstrades, they are actually probably completely open in spain. (except the details like moc's role, that however add to the kick for sipdissers)

Molina btw plays a new kind of double role. on the one hand he is convinced he has no option but to abide, and serves (informs) usia. otoh he still represents spanish pov's in the matter,
he is seriously trying to support the deal of coastguard vessels(downtuned) and transportplanes(disallowed by usia).

the moment he sees those efforts obstructed he accepts the usian authority over the spanish.
wich sort of turns him into an agent. its just that it is made obvious for sipdis he feebly tries to represent spain (russia eg. does not follow up on the notion usia trades weapons to venezuela.)
between him and a traitor. (not that i mind much, if only there was transparance.)

migh it is a complicated job, i am not even anymore sure it wasnt mod spain to be an informer,
check it before you act. i think he was still more pragmatic but less of a contact, alltho on the obvious side(no less of an allie).

i went on to 05moscow11807, that surprisingly also considered trade with venezuela,
on manpads (..) there appears to be cooperation , wich is a suspicious thing considering the need for them if you would want to resist usia, the main antagonist of venezuela.

but on rifles , that apparently russia perceive as sth you can hardly refuse a nation, russia is sure to go forward with the deal and will not exchange serial numbers.
now this could be mod3D. in other words a militairy secret to fool venezuela. it is possible russia and venezuela cooperate to an extent that they would actually tell the usians those numbers, preparing it in this way to escape scrutiny by the venezolans (and perhaps most russians).

the uses of knowing such serial numbers are 'forensical' where else do the weapons end up. who uses them. and thus, who has been supported by chavez.

however the russians note that they perceive the usian attempts as commercial. russia finds their trade impaired and notices how seveal usian corps profit from that.

so the next:p
should be: 10moscow228
'onshore creditcard processing' now what would that be:S?

the stretch of the document is usian companys would be disadvantaged if the russians set up creditcard processing in russia.
even at first glace ofcourse that is hypocrite. why wouldnt a nation set up creditcardprocessing?

well: " Visa would no longer profit from these transactions"

allrighty, so russia is through usian diplomacy (politics) forced to guarantee visa profits??
indeed.

"
The law would set up a National Payment Card System (NPCS), which XXXX reported would likely be run by a consortium of state banks as either a non-profit entity or a joint stock, profit-making company. "

is that the problem? a nonprofit entity?

but it gets more funny:
"
5.(C) In the proposed draft of the law, if international payment card companies choose not to join the NPCS, they will have to set up on-shore processing centers. But neither Visa nor MasterCard representatives,
which together have 85% of the Russian payment card market, are willing to say whether they would be willing to do so.

so even as usia is agressivelly lobbying russia to give visa an unchallenged marketshare of russian financial transactions the givernment, and ambassadors are kept in the dark by the company's they are representing??

now who is the boss there, potus? (president of the united states) or visa.

visa obviously.

nice peek into reality.
mbeki.. they dont like him. perhaps he is a bit hard to handle, and indeed it is sad he would not retract his idiotical statements about aids, justified in so far that it would sound he acceots the official covertstory for that artifical plaque, but wrong in that it shows he is reluctant in emancipating sexuality and by extension in this context , women.

this goes for zuma as well. however they like him more then they admit, because he is smart and straight, even if he exploits political options, he hasn't betrayed his ideological vision.

he 'also keeps his composure' wich can be a very good thing, keeping your composure is a sign of staying calm and not turning violent quickly. however, zuma part two is missing, and with all he whining i saw about him, i can hardly be sure this picture is completely warranted.

the document however left me with a good impression of him. i am curious about mandelas opinion. mandela has a great deal of integrity and is a very usefull source of information as a result.

then tsvangirai. ok it is a bit nitpicky and wow what a lovely tasty juicy incorrect story about that diamondfield, nice diamonds there:p. (heey aljazeera featured that around that time...)
i don't know if mdc was involved according to that doc.

09harare1004 otoh shows a typical insight in politicians (and that tsvangirai himself is perhaps not the ideal person to adopt that attitude)


"He also acknowledged that his public statements calling for easing of sanctions versus his private conversations saying they must be kept in place have caused problems."

he lied to the public. and they tell him to shut up about it in private ('acknowledged" - admitted.. what guild he admitted? telling in private)

last remarks.
seems we are winning the cyberwar.
i admire you people, and love you for that, let's stick to our ways, for freedom and future.
tsvangirai perhaps does not deserve to be directly targetted by me, he's been beaten up before and he is only trying to be political and following his leads(uk,usia) advices.
otoh. transparance is transparance all the way. and the doc reveals his willingness to surrender business to usia and uk "do business with".

there was more noticable about the few docs i discuss here.
and there is a lot that remains to be said about julien assange's case.
indeed he deserves to be released, the foulmouthed remarks "a mischievious prankster' springs to mind, remarks from the worse of the corporations slaves, and the hot talk of former cia heads etc. notwithstanding

into the legal (and actually illegal) aspects of the case i will dig in another post.
its getting a bit much.

i wish everyone of us the best for now, and cheers and thumbs up really for showing who will win the struggle for a virtual and real future.
insist on transparance
take care
be solidair
thank you julien.

leaky

finally a post about richard leakey... well no, he wasn't a very meticulous scientist. allthough he did have the creativity to look at the right place, that might well have been a result to classified acces to definite informations..

I have been taking some more peeks at the cables, and it feels like a responsability to write about the things. sometimes i can't even put a finger on why they make me think certain things, about a conspiracy. like this or like that.

it's a bit like the elections in ivory coast i guess, notwithstanding hillarys patronage, they had to scrap the result in the 7 northern (muslim? well usually northern equals muslim in westafrica) provinces.

so its all in the balance of power. to put it openly, i am not even against it. it may be the result of propaganda, but i am under the impression that in the 21st (and late 20th probably) century so far muslims are safer under christians then the other way around.

nothing absolute, just a development gap i am sure. before another 400 or so years, there wasn't the slightest difference, and that we have gbagbo may well be a result of that circumstance.

that besides gbagbo is a bit of a despot i think, but i am not sure, it's just that every westafrican longstanding leader falls into that category with me. so maybe the west is betting on the wrong horse. in the long run then. in the medium term i think their contracts will be pretty safe, with him needing extra training of security troops etc. now.

actually i even think of him as probably corrupt, however if it sticks to what i already mentioned, bussiness contracts with the western multinationals, well then it isn't as bad as it can get.

some dark place in my memory suggests otherwise, but i will not be trying to compile a short history and impression of that nation. i am trying to write about the leaked cables.

i find it hard to say the right thing, for one thing it is quite a heap even if only 667 had been released yesterday, for another thing it touches on very many very relevant subjects.
(although perhaps some of them don't deserve to feature so prominently)

a third problem is i can deduce some things, i can guess a few more, and my instinct tells me there is something the matter about still more, but doubts allways remain.

people have their personal biases to name one, some of these biases you even need to get higher up in this world. (and i think that is what makes politics so stupid sometimes).

economy to name one, you have to have a holy belief in economy and it's 'laws' (more or less complicated versions of " i want more") to talk all day as if it makes a difference if you rule capitalist or good.

i have a personal bias against people invoking 'economics' as a result. so even my observation could be clouded by bias.

nonetheless i have fought bias my life long and i am aware that such is helpfull.

so the biggest problem is the mass of material, i read through a doc. or 2 or 3 or 4. and in the march i have my ideas, and sometimes analyses.(meaning i could support the idea by eg. quoting from the document) the problem is even bigger because i dont trust the documents very much let alone completely, so perhaps it is interesting to touch on that.

i am not going to generalise , i don't even have the tools for it;) but every document i have seen so far received some personal attention, with the view of not telling to much, not confronting the existing ideas in the usian military, not giving an ineffective impression (allthough i think usia has quite some smart diplomats as a result of reading it)

so on the first desk it may be selfcensored, partly from reports that might be censored in someone or somewhats interesses, next it goes somewhere, to a usian ministry usually, and it gets cleared(censored) for sipnet.

perhaps it got screened in between, condoleeza you could bother with some awfull detail about woman, (she definitily hated it), but clinton?

(not sure if it worked like that but you get the idea)

there are cases that intelligence services go for the censored versions of the storys. and there are cases that usian diplomats suffer from wishfull thinking themselves.
all in all it makes a credible impression as huge pile or worked documents that , and that is the real historical point of them) made their impact , in this version or a (slightly) more elaborate, informative, dirty, one.

some documents also appear as credible as complete fabrications. one stood out, but i havent memorised wich one. probably i didnt read it as thoroughly, if i think, oh crap, this is crap and the next paragraph i think,... only crap. i rather go for the next doc then annoy myself more.

ok those are subjects i have seen crapped about more then this so np. is what i think than. it's a bit like reading the commercial newsoutlets (confirming that same thing so the check is pretty much in that i know the newsstory didn't hold ).

to give a current example, initial reporting mentioned that the korea incident followed on usian exercises, well not anymore , not after 1 day or so after the incident. then all news got censored.

so if i would see a doc that would confirm that circumstance,(there was no usian exercise going) i know it is crap.

however that a part of a document serves to convince the lower echolonned readers, doesnt mean the rest of it could not be carrying a kernel of reality somewhere.

yes i stay cynical for a long time before jumping into conclusions.

next many of them appear rather genuine. perhaps doctored, but the conversation took place, and ,although cleared, some of the detail was really mentioned. (i think not allways all)

i think i saw one that was really from the hand of clinton. well a thing like that is very fascinating to begin with. whats the personality as a professional, do i see a personal approach?

it left an ok impression. smart, rather some personal focus, but perhaps a bit stubborn, you don't get what you want by repeating it , even to your servants.

in that sense she should try to be a tad more flexible. won't be easy, it is the hardest thing there is, changing yourself, and her ways have amongst things led to the succes of obama getting elected. she deserves the plume there.

that besides, it is just my impression, it is well possible that a more pragmatical attitude is quite unworkable in the usian political scene.

however i wouldn't favour that to extend into my correspondence,

you may wonder if it is coincedence, the army and as a result much of the secret services (and by extension the diplomatical corps) are a typical republican thing (the nuke m mentality is, selling guns is, and most of the recent presidents were, there is why.)

so you have to account they will portray hillary in a less favourable light then would the original author have been mccain. (i dont think palin would have the quality).

gosh it might even be funny, oh well, she must have some merits, being smarter and more human then huckabee for one thing is something that is not so hard to do.

(i thought butchers were not allowed even in usian jury's, man can you be wrong)

i acknowledge i think he is a psychopath for coming up with nothing more creative and constructive then he did, worse even, a sociopath.

there's so many observations to make, israel eg. so far is remarkably absent, oh yes there is one i read, an assesment of how eagerly israel would attack iran somewhat on their own iniative.

must say usia shows some restraint, no matter they appear to leave the option to support that open. take me litterally, some restraint is some restraint, not hardly any, not a lot, but it means they are not riding their chairs for exceitement by the idea, and so maybe the iranians and the world will be spared this next greatwar project.

on some occasions it gets pretty sinister. these usually involve armstrade, when armstradedeals are subsubject (meaning they are majorly part of the subject but usually indicated before explicated, and touched upon before described precisely) it can get really very sinister.

to be sure about if armstrade and war are not regarded an asset with it's own value i'd have to read a bit more. and to erase the impression it should actually be rather different. meaning

i think it is sinister, when i read parts with armstrades in (or left out) i get uncanny. sometimes i think it is selling arms and faring war for the sake of the industry and that diplomacy is for the sake of that as well. such parts can be real challenges, especially when the impression is strong but the indications very meagre.(1)

"reading between the lines" .

i allways considered it an art, and childoff i am used that the socalled free media, had no other means to express. as a result i assume some diplomats and politicians also have the capacity to write and read between the lines.

uncanny.

i get back on topic soon, perhaps ill take notes and give examples to all in my next post.
however i am quite used to working with no archive but my mind, it is a big step.

(1) it is worth spending a few words to elaborate on this. in some cases i have the impression all of it is luggage, except the most farfetched implications of 'reading between the lines' and that they indicate they are actually plotting wars / armed violence. even in documents that stress democracy etc. a lot, so that it would mean they are consciously faking such messages, and that a (probably small?) part of recipients would still, i can't think of another expression, find pervers pleasure.

i hope i am paranoid and oversensitive there. The picture of an all dominant political entity (for example they are the boss of the EU and the nations therein) with at least some good intentions (and trying to trade arms) is less scary then this. will try and pay attention.