You’ve got to hand it to Julian Assange. He knows how to capture the imagination. In a surprise escape bid, he is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, seeking political asylum. He now faces arrest for breach of bail conditions, though he can’t be touched by UK authorities while he remains on embassy premises.
How did we get to this impasse? Assange is, of course, the founder of the whistleblower website Wikileaks which has poked some mighty bears, particularly the US government, in publishing enormous amounts of classified information leaked to it.
In August 2010, Assange travelled to Sweden for a series of Wikileaks related public events. While in the country, he had sex with two women, who later went to the police to see if Assange could be compelled to have an HIV test. Those claims have since escalated into allegations of rape and sexual assault. Sweden now seeks his extradition from the UK for questioning in relation to those allegations.
The case is murky. I don’t wish to impugn the allegations, and note that there have been some appalling instances of rape apologism by some of Assange’s supporters. Rape complainants have rights. However, so does Assange, who hasn’t actually been charged with anything (except now, regarding his bail conditions).
Why haven’t Swedish authorities sought to interview Assange in the UK, to at least decide if charges will proceed? As the extradition fight has lasted over 500 days, such a process would have moved things forward faster, surely good for both the complainants and Assange.
And then there’s the strange way in which a Swedish prosecutor quickly decided that Assange had no case to answer and Assange was allowed to leave the country after questioning over a month after the initial complaint, only for the matter to be resurrected by another prosecutor. These odd processes have led many to believe that Sweden wants its hands on Assange so that it can send him to the US.
Assange’s flight to the Ecuadorian embassy is apparently motivated by fear of eventual extradition to the US. Wikileaks’ publications have enraged the government there, which has engaged in an unedifying trawl through its statute books to try to find something to charge Assange with.
Pressure is reportedly being applied to Bradley Manning, the corporal charged with leaking hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks, to implicate Assange in crimes. (Manning himself has been detained since May 2010, including in conditions described as cruel and inhuman by the UN special expert on Torture, and faces life imprisonment).
Finally, Wikileaks has published leaks from the security company Stratfor, which indicate that Assange has already been secretly indicted in the US.
Assange has reason to fear his likely treatment if he is sent to the US. For a start, US prison conditions are often extremely severe, as Manning has found out. Secondly, high profile US politicians and commentators have intemperately labelled Assange a terrorist, and have even called for him to be taken out extrajudicially. Such wild west language may be mere bluster to impress Fox News devotees, but that is cold comfort for its subject.
And the situation wasn’t helped by the baseless labelling of Assange as a criminal by his own government, in the form of Prime Minister Julia Gillard and then Attorney General Robert McClelland (who later had to sheepishly concede that Assange hadn’t committed any crime in Australia).
So what happens now? The asylum claims, based on the future actions of Sweden and the US, are highly speculative. This is one reason why the Australian government hasn’t provided the protection sought by Assange (leading to the dramatic “effective declaration of abandonment” on the Wikileaks site). I suspect it is not common for diplomatic representations to be made with regard to things that haven’t happened yet. Further, if the US wants to extradite Assange, why hasn’t it requested him from the UK?
Finally, powerful due process guarantees do exist to assist Assange in any proceedings in Sweden (in order to resist extradition) or the US (in any subsequent trial). While both countries have been complicit in instances of extraordinary rendition, such disgraceful circumventions of due process are less easy to engineer in the full glare of the publicity which will inevitably surround any course of action involving the high profile Assange.
But, to be fair to Assange, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you. And once he’s in Sweden, quite possibly in detention considering its highly unsatisfactorypre-trial procedures, he’ll have little opportunity to take any sort of control of his own fate. Unlike now.
Regardless, the issue of asylum is now a political question to be determined by the government of Ecuador, apparently within 24 hours. That country is no particular friend of the US, and its President reportedly got on famously with Assange when interviewed on the latter’s chat show (screened on Russia Today) in April.
But then we come to the logistics: how does Assange get out of the embassy, where he is safe, and onto a plane to Quito? A diplomatic car can’t drive all the way up to the airport tarmac. His safe passage out of the embassy can only be achieved with the cooperation of the UK authorities.
An example of such cooperation arose recently when a deal facilitated the safe passage to the US from China of the activist Chen Guangcheng in May on a scholar’s visa.
Otherwise the standoff could be very long indeed. After being granted political asylum in 1956 by the US embassy in Budapest, Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty remained on embassy grounds until 1971 when Pope Paul VI managed to negotiate a deal with Hungary allowing him to leave the country. Less successful was the Panamanian dictator, Manuel Noriega, who sought refuge in the Vatican Embassy in Panama after the US invasion in 1989. After 10 days, Noriega surrendered after being subjected to a barrage of psychological warfare (along with the embassy employees), including the playing of very loud rock music.
The UK probably won’t blast the Ecuadorian embassy with the latest from Lady Gaga, but it seems doubtful that it would choose to favour the interests of Ecuador over the interests of its EU partner Sweden (and, maybe lurking in the background, the US). In which case Assange could be in for a long stay in the embassy. Unless he has another surprise to spring.
9 responses to “The surprising escape bid of Julian Assange”
They won’t need LOUD music, just bad music.
Lots of it.
Maybe C and W.
Enough Bill Ray Cyrus, Achy Breaky Heart and he may Boot Scoot himself to death off the top floor,joined by the other embassy occupants.
The same ‘pain by Muzak’ could apply to would be terrorists, during the games.
Good article Sarah.
Interesting times,indeed.Assange may have a surprise package on all the players should they shaft him.
I reckon by now the Swedish accusers will have their stories well and truly down pat either way.If he did get to Sweden he would need a bloody good lawyer.
I think he is in serious peril.I also think justice and democracy is being put to the test here.
Will we see a statesman/woman with the ‘Wisdom of Solomon’ emerge?
Very good article. I would have loved to hear your views on whether as somebody with well-founded fear of persecution Assange ought to be granted asylum, and whether under the circumstances Australia could have offered to do so..
Re: Loud music, Lady Gaga etc… it may be relevant to know that the US have lately developed sonic weapons that have reportedly already been deployed against Somali pirates. The idea that they’d be deployed somewhere in central London seems far fetched but since we don’t know how targeted they are there’s little doubt it would raise an interesting precedent were things to drag on for long enough that the idea of using them may occur to someone less sympathetic to Assange than we are here in Australia by and large.
The “well founded fear” point is interesting, as I think he has every reason to be afraid, but unfortunately for him so much of it is based on unknowable speculation. In that respect I doubt Australia would offer him asylum as it really seems to have taken a very unsympathetic line.
Also – technical point is that asylum belongs to refugees, and Assange could not be a refugee in Australia coz he is Australian. But it still would have been interesting to see how this would have played out had he sought refuge in the Australian embassy.
I should add that asylum claims are of course always based on speculation to an extent as they concern likely future events that will happen if a person is returned to a particular country. But here, the speculation concerns a lot of things that could play out, but haven’t yet. Whereas a normal asylum claim will often involve evidence of terrible things that have happened in the past (past instances of torture etc).
From Assange’s point of view, why would he wait until bad things have happened and until it is too late to do anything about it? From a strictly legal point of view, maybe the asylum claim is premature. From Ecuador’s point of view, which is what matters … we’ll see soon.
Thanks Sarah, most instructive.
It just strikes me as something of a catch 22 situation when you appear only to be able to claim the protection of a third nation under the terms of asylum whereas the protection we ourselves offer our own citizens seems less clearly defined.
I wish Assange luck in the sense that I think the threats that have been made against him if carried out would be unjust whereas in the meantime his continued liberty comes to symbolise defiance of those threats.
Can the US request extradition from UK when there are already extradition processes underway with Sweden? And if they can, do they have to get in line?
It can certainly do so. The more interesting question is what the UK would do in such a situation. I am not an expert on UK extradition law: it could choose to favour the earlier request, or perhaps the more “worthy” request (ie the one that accords most with British law on a matter), or maybe the most serious request (but how would one compare rape and sexual assault with espionage?). But you raise an interesting point, which may explain why the US has not pursued him in the UK (at least after Sweden sought him). But, if the US really has cooked this up with Sweden, it is fair to wonder why it would want to tango with Sweden rather than the UK.
Great article Sarah.
I hope the Prime Minister reads it