Catching WikiLeaks: Australian Diplomats & the Manning Trial

With the Australian election stuttering towards its hideous climax (we hope with a hideousness moderated by the effects of smaller parties), it is worth noting what has been happening in terms of perceptions of the Manning trial.

There are, of course, numerous. Within the United States, reports suggest indifferent, tepid reaction, mixed with good doses of hostility. In many countries, sympathy for Manning is warm and engaged. In Australia, the reaction, at least in official circles, is muddled.

Philip Dorling has been particularly sharp, providing a good slew of material on Edward Snowden’s revelations. Australia’s link in the global surveillance regime, with its anchors deep in London and Washington, has been discussed at some length. More, it would seem, to come out on that score.

Dorling has also noted the unhealthy approach of Australian diplomats to the trial, highlighting a true brownnoser’s tendency: highlighting those parts of the prosecution’s case which discuss the supposed infractions of WikiLeaks. Australian diplomats want to retain their dining passes to the U.S. club of bruisers, which requires a need to keep abreast of developments. The empire demands its followers to be prescient and “up to date” about those it sees as its enemies.

In April, Dorling noted that, “The Australian embassy has been the only foreign embassy in Washington to regularly attend hearings in the Manning case” (Sydney Morning Herald, Apr 14). This is not merely brownnosing, but brownnosing par excellence, a truly golden standard. Much of this is revealed in the material obtained by Fairfax Media obtained under freedom of information on the pre-trial hearing on February 27-28 at Fort Meade, Maryland.

In the Washington embassy’s notes from a staffer on the pre-trial proceedings, conveyed to Canberra, special attention was given to Manning’s admission that he had been in contact “over a long period of time with someone he assumed was a senior member of WikiLeaks (to whom he gave the chat handle ‘Nathaniel Frank.’)” Of interest was also Manning’s statement that he was in contact with either Assange or “Schmitt” – the pseudonym for Daniel Domsheit-Berg.

Moving the events a few months forward, and we find political pressing by Senator Scott Ludlam of the WA Greens of Foreign Minister Bob Carr to see if Australia has had representatives present at the trial. Carr’s initial response in early June was “I don’t think so.” This is an approach that Carr has learned to master. When asked about the unfortunate fate of the Israeli-Australian citizen Ben Zygier (or “Prisoner X”), he claimed ignorance on a cosmic scale before realising he might have to ask his Israeli counterparts questions.

The response from Carr’s staff member Justin Brown, of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, was more forthcoming. “I understand that there has been a locally engaged official from our embassy that’s been present at the trial.” Brown’s revelations were useful in so far as they cleared the atmosphere as to what was actually happening in terms of an investigation into WikiLeaks. “As you know, Senator, the government has been following the Manning legal process for its duration, given its connection to the WikiLeaks investigation that’s underway in the United States.” Ludlam, chortling in his joy, thanked Brown. “That’s extremely good to hear an Australian official acknowledge that there is an investigation into WikiLeaks in the United States, and into Julian Assange.”

Dorling’s latest discussion centres on a restricted Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Cable declassified under freedom of information. It says what we all know: the efforts of a spineless government intent to tarnish the efforts of an unruly international citizen run by an Australian it would rather forget. WikiLeaks is an organisation “that advocates for random openness without any appropriate limits.”

As of this moment, that wonderful array of invertebrates are gathering a dossier on what they hope will reveal blots on the copybook of Assange and WikiLeaks. This is a crusade in search of a purpose. They will not find much in terms of implication, and what they do find is that history has left them behind in a modern battle of ideas.

Binoy Kampmark was as Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.

© Scoop Media