TBC,

As you point out, Julia was following standard operating procedure, knowing that if the higher echelons decree that something is "illegal", then the plebs will assume that their leaders are in possession of knowledge that confirms their stance.
Most people are simple souls, interested mainly in the conduct of their own affairs - and they are taught from an early age that it is right and good to tell the truth. That they suspect that governments throughout the world indulge in various dubious activities and diplomatic shenanigans is something they take in their stride. They accept it because they are not privy to classified information and they have no way of disabusing themselves of this notion.
Along comes a mechanism that allows transparency and even the promise of confirming these suspicions by revealing the truth, and the first reaction of Western world leaders is condemnation.
It seems that the ideal of "truth" as an example of supreme virtue only applies to the lower orders, and that the selective suppression of it, is the lifeblood of the ruling elite and their agents.

Quite so Poirot, but 'the church' is not just an 'agent' here but a parallel state in full cahoots with the nation-states in which they reside and bleed dry with special privileges via their supernatural status.

No hegemony is complete without the church-state nexus (and note which comes first there) hence the reluctance to diminish it here by Gillard and her political drones.

Our Baptist PM has discovered this truth having once, briefly, pretended to be an 'atheist'.

The Abracadabra words for our political leaders, of course, are once again 'in the national interest'.

This is the political catch-all phrase that is as handy as the religious one starting 'Our Father in Heaven' (and zillion variations thereof).

Those phrases, once uttered, render the receiving ear quite leaden, and the brain quite dead.

Jewely,

"What do we have here that USA considers worth defending?"

Mainly their reputation.

The fact is, that Taiwan, despite considered a thorn for China, was not invaded: China is still too afraid of America's nuclear reprisal, but if the USA fails to protect Australia, they will be called bluff on Taiwan, and the rest of the world, including Europe will also desert the now-useless USA.

If however the Americans could excuse themselves and save their blood by saying "oh, those Assange-supporters down under are not our friends, so why should we help them now?", they would gladly use that opportunity.

Ah, you're singing my tune, TBC. I've been saying for ages that the church parasitises power; its natural habitat is in symbiosis with government, and government requites the relationship by exempting it from paying taxes and granting sundry privileges.
Poirot's quite right too, we're taught not to question authority, and to accept our political paradigm as not only unquestionable, but actually "virtuous"--what a laugh! Thus we westerners (in the main) look with a jaundiced and sanctimonious superciliousness on all "Others". What did Edward Said call it: "orientalism". Anything outside good old westernism is suspect at best. Similarly, popular democracy (the tyranny of the herd) is automatically deemed superior to all contenders; that is without assessing it critically as a working model. There are some things you just don't question in the west, it seems, including popular democracy, capitalism, religious free-loading and allegiance to the US---or whichever western brother is most powerful, notwithstanding that our allies would all cut and run unless it was in their interest to defend, or there was a buck to be made.

Squeers, you might appreciate this, from the Duke of Wellington whilst at dinner at Walmer Castle, Nov. 17, 1831.

Remember, 'democracy' did not appear with Magna Carta, as some poor fools seem to believe, but is only a very recent idea, and one that the ruling class much resented, then as much as now:

"After dinner I mentioned Lord Byron's sentence in manuscript, from a book which Mr. Murray had lent me, that democracy is only an aristocracy of black-guards. 'A democracy,' said the Duke, 'if a real democracy could be formed, would be the strongest of all governments; but then, remember, the strongest is the most tyrannical!'."

Nowadays, any hope for 'democracy' in the West have faded, and we continue with the real 'black-guards' running the show, albeit not all drawn from the inheriting class in this working-class nation state we endure.

*Along comes a mechanism that allows transparency and even the promise of confirming these suspicions by revealing the truth, and the first reaction of Western world leaders is condemnation*

Well of course, Poirot. You are seeing all this one eyed, from
your particular perspective and culture. Within the diplomatic
corps, things are said, what people honestyly think, that simply
cannot be expressed publicly.

You forget that Asians, Chinese and Japanese in particular, go
a long way, in order "not to lose face" as they call it. In Arab
countries, pride is everything. You could frankly start wars over
this, if it were leaked, what one global leader thought of another
etc.

Let me put it to you this way. If every one of your so called
friends, told you what they honestly thought of you, you might
well not have so many friends left. You might feel insulted.

Perhaps not you, but that is how people react, its a human foible.

Now wether we like it or not, world leaders have to get along,
its in our interest that they do. Even if they personally dislike
one another.

All the Wikileaks stuff will do is rub salt into wounds and perhaps
open them further. Its pointless and could be highly damaging.