Wikiwhat?
Today has been a busy day.
About half way through, the phone rang, and Lisa transferred it to me saying, “It’s a Mr. ****”.
Now, the name meant nothing to me. It was obviously an Anglophile name - so it wasn’t the police, (they had already called in connection with the bomb blast earlier this morning), or the Ministry, or anyone one else locally. Perhaps it was a tourist … that happens from time to time, somebody wants to talk about an itinerary and don’t want to wait for the exchange of emails. Maybe it was a guest stating in one of the hotels. Still, I had a strange feeling in my stomach, and with a little doubt in my voice I said, “OK, put him through.”
He introduced himself straight away and told me he was a journalist and which publication he worked for. My heart sank into the pit of my stomach as I prepared for an “interview” about this morning’s bomb explosion, wondering if and how I could put a reassuring gloss onto whatever I had to say. I hadn’t yet prepared any short, pithy quotes that might be useful.
As it happens, he wasn’t interested in the bomb. Maybe he hadn’t yet heard about it – or maybe, it wasn’t quite the right material for his particular paper.
He asked if I was aware of the recent “Wikileaks” saga and the revelations that were emerging out of the publication of “confidential” cables from the American Ambassador back to her bosses in Washington. Now, as it happens, I did know a little bit. It’s obviously been in the news for the last few days – and last night I watched Hilary Clinton deplore the leaks which could be damaging to American interests – as well as put some individual lives at risk.
The previous Wikileaks scandal was about revelations concerning the conduct of the war in Afghanistan – but this one seems to be much more wide ranging with a huge amount of detail, (a quarter of a million documents drawn from 274 embassies around the wolrd since 1966 – although only 290 seem to have published so far).
So far, there only seems to be two “leaks” from Bishkek. Some of the commentators on Twitter are a bit upset about that – they would like to see a lot more revealed about what the Americans knew about the Manas Fuel deal, the events in April and June.
What they’ve had to settle for has been two short accounts of conversations – one, in 2009, with the Chinese Ambassador to Bishkek about the future of the Manas Airbase. In it she seems to suggest some rather unusual comments and admissions from her counterpart – suggestions of “revolution” at home !!! as well as a little “reading between the lines” – something like “he didn’t actually deny it”.
The second was the description of a lunch in 2008 when Prince Andrew visited Bishkek, when he met with a number of British expats living and working here – and that was where I came in … as Max Boyce used to say – “I was there!”
As it happens, I sat next to her at lunch. It was the first time I had met her, although I had seen her once before at a function.
She was very pleasant and everyone seemed to get on.
So her account has come as a bit of a surprise and it has attracted a fair amount of attention in the press for its revelations about some of the Prince’s apparently “off the cuff” remarks, the obsequious attitude of “his mother’s subjects”, an “expletive deleted” and some harsh words about the French.
I won’t say, as some people have, that her account is totally unfair and represented a conversation that didn’t happen, but I will say that it seemed to me to be somewhat “coloured”. I have to admit, however, that it all happened some time ago and whereas she didn’t make notes during the meeting, (I suppose she could have recorded it …) she did at least write her account soon afterwards, whereas I have to rely on my memory of what happened over two years ago – which could be at fault.
She makes a lot play, for example about him being rude – especially about the French … and although the French were mentioned, I didn’t come away, (or, at least, I don’t remember coming away), with the impression that anyone – including Prince Andrew – was particularly harsh towards our Gallic cousins.
She does point out that she had been invited, although her French and German counterparts hadn’t been – even though they are also members of the EU. Frankly, if I as American I would have taken that as a compliment – although she seems to turn it into a slight … against the British.
There are some comments that she reports which I certainly don’t remember. For example, the fawning “What a wonderful representative for the British people! We could not be prouder of our royal family!” at the end of the meeting. I am not saying that it didn’t happen – just that I didn’t hear it … and it wasn’t me who said it.
(I don’t suppose any Americans will be obsequious towards Mrs. Clinton when she is here next week … and even if there are, there probably won’t be a Brit present invited to observe and comment on the fact. )
It seems to me that the account actually says more about her, and her attitude, than it does about the meeting, Prince Andrew or the rest of us who were there. For example, her backhanded compliment, “To his credit, he diligently tried to understand the Kyrgyz point view” and the sarcasm in “with a mock groan …” and her reference to him as the “cherished prince”.
Actually, I feel a little sorry for her … just as I feel sorry for Prince Andrew.
He was in, what he considered to be, what we all considered to be, a private meeting where we could have a free and frank discussion … but maybe we should have all realize that reports or summaries would be made – probably by both sides.
To be fair, she was writing an account to inform her colleagues back in Washington of her impressions of the conversation – and that is her job. She’s meant to do that. No-one should complain about that, although they might want to question the accuracy or interpretation. What is more, she wrote her account of the meeting not expecting it to be made public. At least, when I write here then I know that what I write is going into the public domain – she was writing observations which she thought would remain private- at least for the foreseeable future.
Anyway, the journalist asked me some questions about the event and what I thought of the Ambassador’s account. He was particularly interested, of course, in one or two specific aspects of the report rather than others – such as the “expletive deleted” and the Prince’s apparent criticism of governments and the press.
Although the line was clear the conversation was punctuated by pauses. Sometimes that happens with long distance phone calls that are routed through Satellites or when using IP telephony. I wasn’t sure, but I couldn’t help wondering if he was waiting for me to say something … just to fill the gap created by the silence. I tried to resist the temptation – and hoped that he was calling from Skype.
For anyone who’s interested, the cable can be found here: http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08BISHKEK1095.html
Bishkek