The recent revelation
on Wikileaks about the cables sent by the US Ambassador to the then Secretary
of State is a case in point. What it
amounts to is that the Secretary of State was being fed ‘information’ about
what was happening in Wales which would be utterly unrecognisable to many of
those involved.
My favourite
bit was this:
Plaid Cymru was “vehemently opposed to
nuclear energy.”
The American claimed Welsh Government
energy advisor Dr Ron Loveland told the embassy that “even raising the issue of
nuclear energy with Welsh Deputy First Minister and leader of Plaid Cymru Ieuan
Wyn Jones is ‘too sensitive.’” Mr Jones has
since left those posts. “This negative
attitude toward civil nuclear energy is pervasive in Wales, as several contacts
echoed to ESTHOff similar concerns about nuclear waste.”
Given the huge
difficulties that Plaid has faced over many years precisely because Plaid
Cymru, far from being vehemently opposed, is unable to articulate a coherent
policy on the issue, and given that a lot of that difficulty stemmed from the
pro-Wylfa stance of Ieuan, this part of the feedback to the US is laughable.
On second
thoughts, no it’s not laughable, it’s extremely worrying. If they can get something as simple as this
so wrong, how much more wrong information is being passed back up the
line? Worse still, how many US decisions
on how to react to events in the world’s trouble spots are being made on the
basis of information of such dubious veracity?
2 comments:
Worryingly, I don't think too many people living in the UK would disagree with the US analysis of matters Wales.
But, whereas in most societies those with radical views are invariably marginalised by the mainstream majority, nothing of the kind happens in Wales.
Is it any wonder there is a massive drive to eradicate all things 'Welsh' throughout the British Isles?
I think the US Ambassador hid his true contact in Wales and what must have happened to obtain such a confusing picture was that he must have rung Mr Elis Thomas – twice.
Post a Comment