However stringent the voice of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it lacked the ring of sincerity. She had to defend the indefensible but she could have been more transparent and more forthcoming on the leaks of US classified documents (popularly known as the WikiLeaks expose). This might have revived confidence among the countries which the US has hurt. They would have got some justification to give it the benefit of doubt.

Clinton's statement that the leaks are an attack on peace in the world does not wash. Nor does it condone the breach of faith that other nations repose in Washington. Published comments made by top US diplomats are simply lewd. These were not off the cuff remarks. They had certain thought behind them, even though devilish.

How can the leaders of these countries trust the US which says something pleasant in their presence and entirely the opposite in their absence? This is no diplomacy. It is sheer betrayal. US President Barack Obama, who swore by transparency when he was electioneering for the office, comes out a double faced personality after the disclosures.

His oratory and diction cannot hide the fact that the countries have been taken for a ride. What can Obama's moral stance be when his Secretary of State tells US diplomats at the UN to spy on their counterparts? But then America has the example of Watergate which made former president Richard Nixon resign on the grounds that he had tapped the political discussions of the opposition party and thus misused government machinery.

It seems as if Washington treats other countries as fodder for its mighty machine of diplomacy. Clinton is right when she says that Obama and she framed a world policy which America is trying to implement. But what sort of policy she is alluding to? No doubt, national interests come first. The US is no exception. But why then does it delude the world by pretending that it is guided by altruistic motives?

Dubious ideology

The WikiLeaks tapes have done a great service to the world. US citizens should be more indignant because their government has put a question mark over their credibility. If such are the means that the most powerful democracy adopts to achieve its ends, the very ideology becomes dubious. How is the US different from dictatorships since they too use oily words in public and cut throats in private?

That America wanted to have some nuclear transfer programme for Pakistan's enriched uranium has been known for some time. But Pakistan did not allow the US to remove the enriched fuel from the nuclear reactor Washington had supplied it in the early part of 60s. America has admitted in one of the tapes that no amount of money could persuade the Pakistan army not to manufacture more bombs.

India is upset with Clinton's message to ascertain deliberations regarding the UN Security Council expansion among "self-appointed front runners" for permanent seats — India, Brazil, Germany and Japan (the Group of four).

New Delhi has not reacted to this statement. But it has been hurt by the cable sent to the American ambassador in New Delhi. At present, its position is to let things rest at where they are although a Foreign Office spokesman has said, more for US consumption, that the relationship between the two countries too deep to be disturbed by exterior considerations.

Indian tangle

WikiLeaks has in its possession 3,000 cables which the US embassy in New Delhi has sent to Washington. The worst is yet to come. India suspects that since the leaked documents are dated between 2005 and 2008, there would be a lot of material on its nuclear and defence deals negotiated in that period.

India is facing another embarrassing situation. This is about the Nira Radia tapes, disclosing her — she is a lobbyist — telephone conversations with industrialists and leading journalists. Industrialist Ratan Tata has questioned whether India has turned into a banana republic and asked the government to punish those responsible for it.

He could have named them because the Department of Income Tax says that it authorised the tapping of phones, said to be for more than 500 hours. The Home Ministry says that it had given the permission. It is a questionable order because in a democracy tapping of private telephones is an attack on personal liberty.

Only a part of the conversations has been transcribed but it establishes the nexus between business houses, politicians and journalists. I do not know why only a few journalists were picked up because some 30 of them figure in the tapes. Indian media has to have a code of ethics which journalists should adhere to in all situations.

Unfortunately, some journalists have not come up to the standard they are expected to maintain. In the few cases which are in the public domain, they have been found going beyond the limits. They behaved like power brokers and crossed the Lakshman Rekha (red line) between legitimate news gathering and lobbying. Politicians are naturally jubilant because they can now say: Physicians heal thyself.

 

- Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and a former Rajya Sabha member.