j**n
发帖数: 13789 | 1 关于中国部分译文:
(博讯 boxun.com)
1.一个针对全球的电脑攻击行动:
一个中国的线人,在一月份的一份电报中,告诉美国驻北京大使馆,中共政治局指示
入侵Google(谷歌)位于中国的电脑系统.
针对Google(谷歌)的入侵行动,是中国政府组织策划的电脑攻击行动的其中一部分.
中国政府招募的私人保安专家和黑客,负责发动这些攻击.
电报说,自2002年起,中国政府的黑客已经成功入侵美国政府,西方盟国,达赖喇嘛和
美国企业的电脑.
2.一个最终瓦解北韩(朝鲜)的游戏:
美国和韩国官员已经讨论过朝鲜统一的前景,应该发生在北韩(朝鲜)经济困难和政
治转型导致国家内乱.
据美国驻首尔(汉城)人员透露,南韩(韩国)甚至考虑到为中国提供商业利益诱惑.
她在二月份告诉华盛顿(美国),韩国官员认为,适当的商业交易将"有助于解决"让中
国考虑同意与一个统一的韩国相处的问题.而且韩国统一后,中国与美国之间将会形成一
个"良性同盟"关系.
3.它们(电报)展示了美国官员对于中国崛起和俄罗斯民主倒退的应对措施.
关于中国部分原文:
1.A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the
intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact
told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The
Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage
carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet
outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American
government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and
American businesses since 2002, cables said.
2.Gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South
Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should
the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to
implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China,
according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in
February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals
would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea
” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.
3.They show American officials managing relations with a China on the
rise and a Russia retreating from democracy.
纽约时报全文:
Cables Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels
By SCOTT SHANE and ANDREW W. LEHREN
Published: November 28, 2010
www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html
WASHINGTON — A cache of a quarter-million confidential American
diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an
unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world,
brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear
and terrorist threats.
Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several
other news organizations, were written as recently as late February,
revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts.
The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted
to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks intends to make the archive public
on its Web site in batches, beginning Sunday.
The anticipated disclosure of the cables is already sending shudders
through the diplomatic establishment, and could conceivably strain relations
with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are
impossible to predict.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and American ambassadors
around the world have been contacting foreign officials in recent days to
alert them to the expected disclosures. On Saturday, the State Department’s
legal adviser, Harold Hongju Koh, wrote to a lawyer for WikiLeaks informing
the organization that the distribution of the cables was illegal and could
endanger lives, disrupt military and counterterrorism operations and
undermine international cooperation against nuclear proliferation and other
threats.
The cables, a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the State
Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, amount to a secret
chronicle of the United States’ relations with the world in an age of war
and terrorism. Among their revelations, to be detailed in The Times in
coming days:
¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007,
the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful,
to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that
American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear
device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was
refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a
Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal,
‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s
nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”
¶ Gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and
South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea,
should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the
state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements
to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington
in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business
deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified
Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.
¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American
diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became
reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.”
Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President
Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth
millions of dollars to take in a group of detainees, cables from diplomats
recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners
would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”
¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When
Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year,
local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration
discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement
, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a
significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately
allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr.
Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)
¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the
intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese
contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported.
The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage
carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet
outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American
government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and
American businesses since 2002, cables said.
¶ Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief
financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf
state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the
“worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State
Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to
act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with
the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.
¶ An intriguing alliance: American diplomats in Rome reported in
2009 on what their Italian contacts described as an extraordinarily close
relationship between Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian prime minister, and
Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and business magnate,
including “lavish gifts,” lucrative energy contracts and a “shadowy”
Russian-speaking Italian go-between. They wrote that Mr. Berlusconi “
appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe. The
diplomats also noted that while Mr. Putin enjoys supremacy over all other
public figures in Russia, he is undermined by an unmanageable bureaucracy
that often ignores his edicts.
¶ Arms deliveries to militants: Cables describe the United States’
failing struggle to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in
Lebanon, which has amassed a huge stockpile since its 2006 war with Israel.
One week after President Bashar al-Assad promised a top State Department
official that he would not send “new” arms to Hezbollah, the United States
complained that it had information that Syria was providing increasingly
sophisticated weapons to the group. ¶ Clashes with Europe over human
rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce
arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a
bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as
a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in
Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our
intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German
government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for
relations with the U.S.”
The 251,287 cables, first acquired by WikiLeaks, were provided to The
Times by an intermediary on the condition of anonymity. Many are
unclassified, and none are marked “top secret,” the government’s most
secure communications status. But some 11,000 are classified “secret,” 9,
000 are labeled “noforn,” shorthand for material considered too delicate
to be shared with any foreign government, and 4,000 are designated both
secret and noforn.
Many more cables name diplomats’ confidential sources, from foreign
legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists,
often with a warning to Washington: “Please protect” or “Strictly
protect.”
The Times has withheld from articles and removed from documents it is
posting online the names of some people who spoke privately to diplomats and
might be at risk if they were publicly identified. The Times is also
withholding some passages or entire cables whose disclosure could compromise
American intelligence efforts.
Terrorism’s Shadow
The cables show that nearly a decade after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001
, the dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States’ relations
with the world. They depict the Obama administration struggling to sort out
which Pakistanis are trustworthy partners against Al Qaeda, adding
Australians who have disappeared in the Middle East to terrorist watch lists
, and assessing whether a lurking rickshaw driver in Lahore, Pakistan, was
awaiting fares or conducting surveillance of the road to the American
Consulate.
They show American officials managing relations with a China on the rise
and a Russia retreating from democracy. They document years of painstaking
effort to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon — and of worry about
a possible Israeli strike on Iran with the same goal.
Even when they recount events that are already known, the cables offer
remarkable details.
For instance, it has been previously reported that the Yemeni government
has sought to cover up the American role in missile strikes against the
local branch of Al Qaeda. But a cable’s fly-on-the-wall account of a
January meeting between the Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Gen.
David H. Petraeus, then the American commander in the Middle East, is
nonetheless breathtaking.
“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Mr. Saleh said
, according to the cable sent by the American ambassador, prompting Yemen’s
deputy prime minister to “joke that he had just ‘lied’ by telling
Parliament” that Yemeni forces had carried out the strikes.
Mr. Saleh, who at other times resisted American counterterrorism
requests, was in a lighthearted mood. The authoritarian ruler of a
conservative Muslim country, Mr. Saleh complains of smuggling from nearby
Djibouti, but tells General Petraeus that his concerns are drugs and weapons
, not whiskey, “provided it’s good whiskey.”
Likewise, press reports detailed the unhappiness of the Libyan leader,
Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, when he was not permitted to set up his tent in
Manhattan or to visit ground zero during a United Nations session last year.
But the cables add to the tale a touch of scandal and alarm. They
describe the volatile Libyan leader as rarely without the companionship of
“his senior Ukrainian nurse,” described as “a voluptuous blonde.” They
reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that
he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to
Russia. The American ambassador to Libya told Colonel Qaddafi’s son “that
the Libyan government had chosen a very dangerous venue to express its pique
,” a cable reported to Washington.
The cables also disclose frank comments behind closed doors. Dispatches
from early this year, for instance, quote the aging monarch of Saudi Arabia,
King Abdullah, as speaking scathingly about the leaders of Iraq and
Pakistan.
Speaking to another Iraqi official about Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi
prime minister, King Abdullah said, “You and Iraq are in my heart, but
that man is not.” The king called President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan
the greatest obstacle to that country’s progress. “When the head is rotten
,” he said, “it affects the whole body.”
The American ambassador to Eritrea reported last year that “Eritrean
officials are ignorant or lying” in denying that they were supporting the
Shabab, a militant Islamist group in Somalia. The cable then mused about
which seemed more likely.
As he left Zimbabwe in 2007 after three years as ambassador, Christopher
W. Dell wrote a sardonic account of Robert Mugabe, that country’s aging
and erratic leader. The cable called Mr. Mugabe “a brilliant tactician”
but mocked “his deep ignorance on economic issues (coupled with the belief
that his 18 doctorates give him the authority to suspend the laws of
economics).”
The possibility that a large number of diplomatic cables might become
public has been discussed in government and media circles since May. That
was when, in an online chat, an Army intelligence analyst, Pfc. Bradley
Manning, described having downloaded from a military computer system many
classified documents, including “260,000 State Department cables from
embassies and consulates all over the world.” In an online discussion with
Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker, Private Manning said he had delivered the
cables and other documents to WikiLeaks.
Mr. Lamo reported Private Manning’s disclosures to federal authorities,
and Private Manning was arrested. He has been charged with illegally
leaking classified information and faces a possible court-martial and, if
convicted, a lengthy prison term.
In July and October, The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and
the German magazine Der Spiegel published articles based on documents about
Afghanistan and Iraq. Those collections of dispatches were placed online by
WikiLeaks, with selective redactions of the Afghan documents and much
heavier redactions of the Iraq reports. The group has said it intends to
post the documents in the current trove as well, after editing to remove the
names of confidential sources and other details.
Fodder for Historians
Traditionally, most diplomatic cables remain secret for decades,
providing fodder for historians only when the participants are long retired
or dead. The State Department’s unclassified history series, entitled “
Foreign Relations of the United States,” has reached only the year 1972.
While an overwhelming majority of the quarter-million cables provided to
The Times are from the post-9/11 era, several hundred date from 1966 to the
1990s. Some show diplomats struggling to make sense of major events whose
future course they could not guess.
In a 1979 cable to Washington, Bruce Laingen, an American diplomat in
Teheran, mused with a knowing tone about the Iranian revolution that had
just occurred: “Perhaps the single dominant aspect of the Persian psyche is
an overriding egoism,” Mr. Laingen wrote, offering tips on exploiting this
psyche in negotiations with the new government. Less than three months
later, Mr. Laingen and his colleagues would be taken hostage by radical
Iranian students, hurling the Carter administration into crisis and, perhaps
, demonstrating the hazards of diplomatic hubris.
In 1989, an American diplomat in Panama City mulled over the options
open to Gen. Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian leader, who was facing narcotics
charges in the United States and intense domestic and international
political pressure to step down. The cable called General Noriega “a master
of survival”; its author appeared to have no inkling that one week later,
the United States would invade Panama to unseat General Noriega and arrest
him.
In 1990, an American diplomat sent an excited dispatch from Cape Town:
he had just learned from a lawyer for Nelson Mandela that Mr. Mandela’s 27-
year imprisonment was to end. The cable conveys the momentous changes about
to begin for South Africa, even as it discusses preparations for an
impending visit from the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.
The voluminous traffic of more recent years — well over half of the
quarter-million cables date from 2007 or later — show American officials
struggling with events whose outcomes are far from sure. To read through
them is to become a global voyeur, immersed in the jawboning, inducements
and penalties the United States wields in trying to have its way with a
recalcitrant world.
In an era of satellites and fiber-optic links, the diplomatic cable
retains the archaic name of an earlier technological era. It has long been
the tool for the secretary of state to dispatch orders to the field and for
ambassadors and political officers to send their analyses back to Washington.
The cables come with their own lexicon: “codel,” for a visiting
Congressional delegation; “visas viper,” for a report on a person
considered dangerous; “démarche,” an official message to a foreign
government, often a protest or warning.
Diplomatic Drama
But the drama in the cables often comes from diplomats’ narratives of
meetings with foreign figures, games of diplomatic poker in which each side
is sizing up the other and neither is showing all its cards.
Among the most fascinating examples recount American officials’
meetings in September 2009 and February 2010 with Ahmed Wali Karzai, the
half brother of the Afghan president and a power broker in the Taliban’s
home turf of Kandahar.
They describe Mr. Karzai, “dressed in a crisp white shalwar kameez,”
the traditional dress of loose tunic and trousers, appearing “nervous,
though eager to express his views on the international presence in Kandahar,
” and trying to win over the Americans with nostalgic tales about his years
running a Chicago restaurant near Wrigley Field.
But in midnarrative there is a stark alert for anyone reading the cable
in Washington: “Note: While we must deal with AWK as the head of the
Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics
trafficker.” (Mr. Karzai has repeatedly denied such charges.) And the
cables note statements by Mr. Karzai that the Americans, informed by a
steady flow of eavesdropping and agents’ reports, believe to be false.
A cable written after the February meeting coolly took note of the
deceit on both sides.
Mr. Karzai “demonstrated that he will dissemble when it suits his needs
,” the cable said. “He appears not to understand the level of our
knowledge of his activities. We will need to monitor his activity closely,
and deliver a recurring, transparent message to him” about the limits of
American tolerance.
Not all Business
Even in places far from war zones and international crises, where the
stakes for the United States are not as high, curious diplomats can turn out
to be accomplished reporters, sending vivid dispatches to deepen the
government’s understanding of exotic places.
In a 2006 account, a wide-eyed American diplomat describes the lavish
wedding of a well-connected couple in Dagestan, in Russia’s Caucasus, where
one guest is the strongman who runs the war-ravaged Russian republic of
Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.
The diplomat tells of drunken guests throwing $100 bills at child
dancers, and nighttime water-scooter jaunts on the Caspian Sea.
“The dancers probably picked upwards of USD 5000 off the cobblestones,
” the diplomat wrote. The host later tells him that Ramzan Kadyrov “had
brought the happy couple ‘a five-kilo lump of gold’ as his wedding present
.”
“After the dancing and a quick tour of the premises, Ramzan and his
army drove off back to Chechnya,” the diplomat reported to Washington. “We
asked why Ramzan did not spend the night in Makhachkala, and were told, ‘
Ramzan never spends the night anywhere.’ ” |
|
