WikiLeaks on Latin America: U.S. ambassador to Mexico speaks out

Carlos Pascual, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, is clearly not happy to see the WikiLeaks disclosure of diplomatic cables. While not confirming the authenticity of the missives, Pascual tells The Times that they do not represent U.S. policy and should be viewed as "impressionistic snapshots of a moment in time."

"But like some snapshots, they can be out of focus or unflattering," Pascual said in comments e-mailed to us Thursday night. "Collectively, however, they also show U.S. diplomats doing what they are supposed to do -- engaging with governments and societies around the world to advance our shared interests."

The cables revealed an assessment of President Felipe Calderon's war on drug cartels that contrasts sharply with the official view repeated by U.S. and Mexican leaders. U.S. diplomats write that rivalries among Mexican security agencies and tensions between the army and navy all work to hobble the government's efforts. Here is The Times' story, and here is a good summary of the cables in La Plaza.

"Confidentiality is fundamental to do business in virtually any sector -- whether it’s in banking, law, journalism, medicine, education or diplomacy," Pascual added. "Attacks on confidentiality -- on the ability to communicate freely -- will threaten our jobs, our ability to resolve problems, and the impetus for creativity in our societies."

Pascual said that "no illegal act" would undermine the "rock-solid" relationship between Mexico and the United States. The Mexican Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, released a statement (link in Spanish) that, while saving most of its scolding for WikiLeaks, added that the cables "reflect certain deplorable practices, from the perspective of the respect that should reign between nations collaborating on common goals."

-- Tracy Wilkinson in Mexico City

Photo: Carlos Pascual. Credit: El Universal

Comments

[jsa26]

The issue here is whether the citizens of the US are told "ENOUGH OF THE TRUTH".

Your understatement "The cables revealed an assessment of President Felipe Calderon's war on drug cartels that contrasts sharply with the official view repeated by U.S. and Mexican leaders."

If the country's leadership, security forces and law enforcement are so corrupt as to endanger the security of the United States, then lying to the American people is unconscionable.

[Craised]

The Espionage Act cannot be applied to Julian Assange because he is not a U.S. citizen and cannot be prosecuted in Australia or Sweden as he has not committed any espionage against those countries--or technically, anyone at this point. Pfc. Brad Manning would be the actual source of espionage, if espionage has been determined. Also, the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment reflects a basic human right to free speech (personal expression, redress of grievances, intellectual and religious freedom of discourse, exposure crimes and other wrongdoings), but there are limits to free speech where privacy, defamation, trade secrets, or personal human rights/security or collective national security would be impaired or destroyed. Julian Assange has potentially done both here. Exposing crimes against humanity inherently trumps secrecy as per fundamental morality. So the question "Does the First Amendment protect Julian Assange?" has a parallel of "Has Julian Assange exposed crimes against humanity that can facilitate the due moral redress and correction of these crimes?" I don't know--that depends on the contents of the cables and the world events they detail.