Can we go to WikiLeaks? That might be an easy subject.
Crowley: This is a Hobson’s choice to be sure. (Laughs)
P J, the secretary right now, as you mentioned, is in Kazakhstan. And, specifically with WikiLeaks, there are some leaks, documents in there, that specifically refer to President Nazarbayev, his lifestyle, his son-in-law, etc. How will this complicate the trip?
Crowley: Well, the timing is exquisite. Look, she has had a number of conversations with her counterparts prior to the trip. This issue will come up in the various interactions that she has within the OSCE meeting. We’re not going to talk about specific classified documents, but she will reassure them in private and commit that we will do everything that we can to sustain the close cooperation, collaboration, and engagement that we have with a variety of countries. We are not going to let what WikiLeaks has done undermine the global cooperation that is vitally important to resolving regional and global security challenges.
PJ, you’re probably aware that in the blogosphere, there are a few people who are now saying the secretary should resign over WikiLeaks, and they’re saying not only that...
Crowley: And why would that be?
Well, I’m going to give the reasons to you. Essentially, one would be just the fact that they came – that these were leaked, but more importantly, they’re zeroing in back again on the UN and that directive, which apparently came from the office of the secretary, telling diplomats to collect this information.
Crowley: Well, again, let me be clear on that. I’ve touched on that, but let me be as clear as I can. The secretary has said it. Ambassador Rice has said it. I’ve said it. Diplomats are diplomats. That is their job. Diplomats are not intelligence assets. I’m reluctant to talk about any particular document, but, by tradition, any document that leaves the Department of State has the secretary of state’s name on it. She is responsible, but she was not the author of that particular document, and the contents of that came from outside the Department of State. Diplomats have a difficult job. It is useful for them to know what is of interest across the government, but this doesn’t change their day-to-day duties.
PJ, just one clarification, if you look at those – the articles that are being written – it’s being described as not only information, but biometric data. And, one of the articles I read said DNA. It was as detailed as that.
Crowley: Look, there are entities within our government that have certain responsibilities. It is one thing for that community to provide a wishlist across the government that helps people understand what is useful. It takes a leap of faith to say that fundamentally changes the day-to-day responsibilities of our diplomats. It doesn’t. Our diplomats are diplomats, not intelligence assets. They can collect information. If they collect information that is useful, we share it across the government, as we’ve been talking about with respect to documents generated by the Department of State. Please do not infer from one document that this fundamentally changes the role...
But PJ, how can you say that diplomats are diplomats when we’re talking about collecting DNA data? You want to know how many times these UN officials are flying, you want to know the credit card details. Can you at least acknowledge that after 9/11 there is a blurring of lines between diplomacy and espionage, that the role of a diplomat has expanded?
Crowley: I will specifically reject that idea. Nothing in the role of a diplomat has changed because of any one document or any one event. What we do here at the State Department, we’ve done it for a number of years, and our role in helping formulate and execute the US foreign policy did not change on 9/11.
So you always collected DNA data?
Crowley: Nothing in any document that is allegedly in the tranche of WikiLeaks changed the role of any diplomat anywhere in the world.
More From This Section
PJ, the secretary of state described these leaks as stolen. Right?
Crowley: Well, put it this way. The information, the passing of classified information to someone who is not authorised to have it, is a crime.
Why shouldn’t Assange then be pursued as a burglar? You issue an arrest warrant and say he burglarised and will you bring him to task?
Crowley: As the attorney general said yesterday, there is an ongoing investigation regarding anyone who has been potentially implicated by this situation.
We’re talking about someone who is neither a US citizen nor a US resident, what are the legal ramifications of that?
Crowley: Again, I’ll defer to the Department of Justice.
How do you size up Julian Assange’s character and motives? You haven ’t said anything...
Crowley: Well, I believe he has been described as an anarchist. His actions seem to substantiate that.
(Edited transcript of press briefing with US State Department Spokesman P J Crowley, Washington, 30 November)
