Julian Assange is the world’s most famous whistle-blower. The 41-year-old Australian-born journalist, activist and publisher of the infamous website WikiLeaks has been holed up at the Ecuadorian embassy in London for several weeks now, living in diplomatic limbo. The stately redbrick embassy complex located in London’s fashionable Knightsbridge district has been the scene of an incredible international standoff since Assange sought refuge there in mid-June, appealing for asylum on the grounds of political persecution.
Earlier this year, British authorities obtained a court order authorizing them to extradite Assange to Sweden for questioning in a dubious sexual assault case. Assange managed to jump bail and take shelter in Ecuador’s embassy a few days before the U.K. was due to pack him off to Sweden to face questioning for these allegations. British authorities have now stated that Assange is to be arrested “under all circumstances” if he tries to leave the building.
Supporters of Assange assert that the British government is being less than sincere in its stated motives, and that this entire episode is a setup on behalf of vengeful United States authorities, still angry over the release of hundreds of thousands of extremely damaging confidential diplomatic cables posted on WikiLeaks in 2010.
In a recent speech given by Assange from the balcony of the embassy, he urged America to “end its witch hunt” against WikiLeaks. He also said that the U.S. “must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.” Assange referred to the imprisonment of human rights activist Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain and the Russian punk rock band Pussy Riot, saying “There is unity in the oppression. There must be absolute unity and determination in the response.”
Assange as yet has not been formally charged with any crimes. He is only supposedly wanted for questioning in the Swedish case.
Still, he’s been under house arrest in England for almost two years, since a state prosecutor in Sweden issued a warrant. Under obvious political pressure, the prosecutor (not a judge, crucially) issued the warrant for suspicion of rape, unlawful coercion and sexual molestation.
These charges clearly need to be fully investigated, but supporters of Assange see the case as a ploy to have him arrested in Sweden and turned over to U.S. officials who want to try him under the Espionage Act. Removing Assange from the scene would be a huge victory for the U.S. government, and it would be a major setback to those who believe in the public’s right to know. At the very least, U.S. authorities hope to make an example of him.
In December 2011, Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens reiterated his client’s belief that the allegations in Sweden were simply a delaying tactic while the U.S. justice department prepares its case against him for exposing war crimes on the WikiLeaks website.
Stephens said, “Assange could face extradition or illegal rendition to the U.S. from Sweden, where he could be detained in a high-security prison and face the death penalty under the Espionage Act.”
Assange has repeatedly offered to meet the Swedish authorities in their own embassy in London or at Scotland Yard, but he’s been refused on every occasion. This seems a bit heavy-handed to many legal experts, leading to further suspicions of behind-the-scenes machinations.
On Aug. 15, the British government threatened to storm the Ecuadorian embassy and forcibly arrest Assange in a move that would have seriously violated diplomatic conventions. According to international law, this would be tantamount to an invasion of sovereign territory. Foreign minister Ricardo Patiño condemned the threats, warning that the action would set a dangerous international precedent. The U.K. later tried to backtrack, claiming it was merely clarifying its legal position under Britain’s own Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, which allows the host government to determine what land is considered to be diplomatic or consular premises.
The following day, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa granted political asylum to Assange, ratcheting up the diplomatic tension.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Patiño cited reasonable concerns that Assange might be extradited to the U.S., which could lead to his indefinite incarceration or even execution. President Correa said he shares Assange’s fears that if he’s handed over to Sweden he will be extradited to the U.S. to face charges over WikiLeaks.
The British Foreign Office said it was “disappointed” by Ecuador’s decision, but it still fully intended to uphold its binding agreement to extradite Assange.
American and European sources insist the U.S. has filed no criminal charges against the WikiLeaks founder, and that no attempt will be made to extradite him from Sweden. Assange and his lawyers aren’t buying it, however. At the pretrial hearing for Pfc. Bradley Manning (the soldier accused of uploading some of the most politically damaging files to the WikiLeaks site), a U.S. Army investigator confirmed in court that the FBI was secretly targeting the “founders, owners or managers of WikiLeaks” for prosecution under the Espionage Act.
Another leaked Pentagon memo described how WikiLeaks should be destroyed with a smear campaign leading to “criminal prosecution.” Last month, the Sydney Morning Herald disclosed that the U.S. is conducting an “unprecedented” legal pursuit of Assange.
The sex crime allegations are a smokescreen behind which several governments are trying to shut down WikiLeaks for exposing their secret plans for war, occupation and destruction. The excuse of “national security” is used by countries like the U.S. to withhold critical information from their own citizens. If the evidence that WikiLeaks seeks to provide was more readily available for public scrutiny and widely disseminated, many of the unlawful and immoral decisions made by our leaders behind closed doors could, perhaps, be avoided.
Predictably, the mainstream U.S. news media (mostly owned by defense contractors with a vested interest in keeping their crimes from public exposure) continue to defame Assange as a “high-tech terrorist,” even though some of them, like the New York Times, profited directly from information provided by WikiLeaks.
In a recent interview on Venezuelan television, Assange argued that democracy in Western countries is an illusion, and that the constant surveillance of citizens is leading to the creation of a “transnational totalitarian state.”
He said, “This is an international phenomenon that isn’t just happening in the U.S. … it’s bigger than the U.S., and it’s taking us to a dark place.” Assange said that basic human rights in the West are being quietly eroded, and that the public is being negatively influenced by “massive press manipulation.”
Freedom of the press is under serious threat around the world.
According to the 2012 World Press Freedom Index, America’s ranking fell once again in the annual study. We’re currently tied with Argentina and Romania at No. 47. The U.K. ranks No. 28. Norway and Finland top the list, as usual; Sweden is No. 12.
As it currently stands, Assange is prepared to remain a resident of the Ecuadorian embassy for another year if necessary. He’s hoping that Sweden will eventually drop its case against him. “I think this is the most likely scenario,” he said.
The fate of Assange just may determine the future of free speech on planet Earth. I wish him the best of luck.
