Such is the nature of groupthink among Western commentators that you’d be hard-pressed to find any who support, as I do, Russia’s decision on Friday to incarcerate three Pussy Rioters. The nature of their political hooliganism warrants prosecution.
Likewise you’d be hard-pressed to find any who oppose, as I do, Ecuador’s decision that same day to grant Julian Assange asylum. The nature of his alleged sexual offenses warrants prosecution.
Despite a hollow threat to storm the embassy, Britain ordered police to surround it 24/7 and arrest him as soon as he steps foot outside. It maintains that it has an obligation to extradite him to Sweden in accordance with the Vienna Convention’s Extradition Act and pursuant to the finding of just cause by its own Supreme Court.
To be fair, Assange maintains that he does not fear criminal prosecution in Sweden. He fears that, if extradited, Sweden will promptly extradite him to the United States to face the death penalty for publishing a treasure trove of classified government documents on his infamous site, WikiLeaks.
For the record, here is how I characterized his fate in this respect two years ago:
[I]f these leaks pose (or have caused) the kind of damage U.S. officials claim, then Julian Assange, the defiant discloser of all government secrets who heads WikiLeaks, should be dead or sitting in Guantanamo Bay.
(“WikiLeaks More U.S. Secrets,” The iPINIONS Journal, November 29, 2010)
But I hasten now to clarify that, if extradited, tried, and convicted under the Espionage Act, Assange would be sentenced to prison, not death. After all, the United States stopped executing people for espionage decades ago. It’s also instructive that prosecutors have already declared they will not be seeking the death penalty against Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier who stole those classified documents for Assange.
This is why the only issue here is whether Ecuador – in the person of its wannabe-Chávez president, Rafael Correa – can be allowed to frustrate Britain’s obligation under international law to extradite Assange to Sweden to face charges for crimes he allegedly committed there. I say no.
Like Venezuela, Ecuador is becoming famous for condemning the way the United States prevails upon sovereign countries to act in its interest on the international stage. Therefore, it seems hypocritical that Ecuador is demanding a guarantee from Sweden that it would not extradite Assange to the United States if Ecuador hands him over to Britain. Got that?
Indeed, it’s academic because Sweden clearly will not, indeed cannot, offer any such guarantee. Not least because if the United States presented a legally cognizable case for extradition in a Swedish court, Sweden would be obligated – under the same Extradition Act that obligates Britain – to extradite him.
Meanwhile, it is plainly absurd for Assange to be championing freedom of speech from sanctuary being provided by a country that is notorious for denying this freedom. Not to mention that his schtick about being a martyr for transparency and freedom of the press smacks of nothing more than a cynical ploy to avoid doing time for his crime(s).
It is hardly surprising, of course, that pathologically anti-American countries are standing in solidarity with Ecuador. But I am stupefied that so many Western commentators are standing in solidarity with Assange. Not least because they are doing so at the expense of his alleged victims who have been waiting for years for this narcissistic, self-righteous crusader to be brought to justice.
It is irrelevant, and I’m sure Sweden couldn’t care less, that Assange fears the United States is on a “witch hunt” against WikiLeaks – as he charged during his sermon on the windowsill yesterday….
In the meantime the world is being treated to a Mexican standoff. There’s no way Ecuador can sneak him out of the embassy, let alone the country; therefore, Assange could be inside for a very long time.
In which case it might be helpful to know that this is not like the embassy of a rich country. In fact, by all accounts, his accommodations and amenities are such that it might be only a matter of time before Assange decides that he’d rather be imprisoned by either Sweden or the United States than remain holed up in Ecuador’s embassy….
That said, If Assange were exposing government corruption or activities that betray the public trust, I would be his most ardent supporter. But he’s leading a foolhardy and untenable crusade for ‘complete transparency’ in diplomatic relations. Instead of winning converts, this will only ensure that diplomats will be even more secretive in their dealings to avoid even the remotest possibility of being ‘exposed.’
Which is why WikiLeaks is about as relevant today as yesterday’s newspaper. And Assange himself will be old news soon enough – as the fickle Twitterverse, which seems to determine all the news that’s fit to follow these days, becomes obsessed with the next sensational story. (Apropos of which, Britain is probably wondering what happened to all of that media goodwill it was reveling in just days ago for hosting such a terrific Olympic Games.)
Still, it’s troubling enough that his supporters do not seem at all concerned that, far from exposing treachery, WikiLeaks merely compromised the constructive engagement the United States had with a number of Muslim countries. This engagement was clearly furthering greater comity and cooperation among nations. And, for obvious reasons, public knowledge of such could incite domestic unrest in the countries involved.
But it’s truly mind-boggling that his supporters do not even seem concerned that Assange’s cult-like mission has ruined the careers and endangered the lives of scores of innocent diplomats.
Related commentaries:
Assange fears Guantanamo…