Sunday, September 22, 2013

American archives on the Middle East

Having spent time in the National Archives in Washington, DC and followed what is being released on the Middle East since, I can categorically say that Western powers are extremely strict in what they release about the Middle East and that they are very secrecy-obsessed even 50 years after the event.  The reasons are simple: the ruling families remain the same in many Arab countries, and some of the political parties also remain in action, and some of the same conspiracies are still in place.  There is nothing of real value that has come out of the US archives on the Middle East.  It is all chit-chat and details that in no way change our knowledge of history.  You may learn that Kissinger used bad language here or there but no real secrets of the times will be released.  It is not as strict in France and UK but very strict nevertheless.  The US made one exception in the case of the Iranian coup in 1953 and that is only because the Shah and his family will never be back in Iran.  If the US harbored any hopes for their return, they would have kept the documents under wrap.  Are you aware that the US has yet to release any information on its role in the 1949 coup of Husni Az-Za`im, which was also hatched by the CIA?  Gulf papers are the only ones who hail those US releases and they publish them in the oil and gas media because they know that no embarrassing secrets will ever come out of them.

PS Of course, Wikileaks is the exception but the documents were released against the will of the US government (and US diplomats toured the Middle East to apologize to its leaders in the aftermath, and the US government may even give Lebanese former minister, Ilyas Murr--who was most damaged by the revelation due to his stupidity and braggart personality--a UN job as a consolation prize.)  And its level of secrecy is the lowest in US classification.