INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY GETS WEIRD
We live in weird times.
Why does the Kremlin love Julian Assange, but want to punish Pussy Riot? After all, they are both now internationally celebrated darlings of dissent.
And is the Australian government telling us everything they know about the US interest in Assange? When Julian Assange appeared on the balcony of his new digs at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, he asked President Obama to come clean.
What’s going on?
In the past week, Great Britain has threatened to turn international diplomacy on its head by storming an embassy in London that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange now calls home, having been granted political asylum by Ecuador.
And Moscow has decided there is nothing odd about sending three members of the Pussy Riot punk rock band to jail for two years for an anti-Putin protest whilst standing up for Julian Assange’s freedom.
In truth, the Kremlin would be more concerned about preserving the inviolability of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomatic premises – than Assange’s life and liberty. The Russians would no doubt like to keep that card up their sleeve for future use.
It’s not that Moscow isn’t also a bit smitten with Assange.
The leaked 250,000 confidential US diplomatic cables in 2010 embarrassed a nation President Putin has a love/hate relationship with.
Putin was no doubt left red-faced by the descriptions in the cables of his relationship with the rogue, and now former Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. But the Kremlin was nonetheless very happy to give Assange an outlet – on its international mouthpiece Russia Today. That’s where Assange interviewed the unpopular, anti-media freedom Ecuadorian President who suggested the Wikileaks founder might think about coming to live in his country, given how unpopular Assange was feeling.
The weirdness doesn’t end here.
There’s the Australian Government’s position that it has no firm information that the United States wants to extradite Julian Assange at all. The Foreign Minister Bob Carr has repeatedly denied knowledge of any investigation of Assange or plans by the US to begin extradition proceedings if and when Great Britain gets the opportunity to send Assange to Sweden where he’s wanted for questioning over alleged sexual assault and rape.
But it may well be, at least on the evidence published by The Sydney Morning Herald, that what the Australian government has been asserting is at best gilding the lily and at worst, not true.
According to Foreign Affairs and Trade documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws by Fairfax, our diplomats have been monitoring a US espionage investigation against Wikileaks for some 18 months. They even took an educated guess at the charges, which could possibly be laid against Julian Assange – espionage, computer fraud, access to illegal information and conspiracy.
That 18 months spans two Australian Foreign Affairs Ministers – Bob Carr and Kevin Rudd.
According to the now declassified cables, as recently as February 2012, Australia’s Ambassador to the United States Kim Beazley made high-level representations to the Americans asking for “advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange”.
Canberra must have been fairly sure that extradition was on America’s mind for it to direct Ambassador Beazley to do some footwork.
And this was not the first time the Australian diplomats had asked the Americans for information.
Back in December 2010, when Kevin Rudd was Foreign Minister, the Australian Embassy became aware that Assange was the target of a US Justice Department investigation. Again, they asked the Americans for “advance warning”.
| Page 1 of 2 | next >> |
26 Responses to this article
-
Alberta August 20, 2012
This diplomatic duplicity is just why we need Julian Assange and Wikileaks
-
Quiet August 20, 2012
I am confused, didn’t Julian put American soldiers’ lives at risk with his Wikileaks actions??? and isn’t sexual assault, still assault and a criminal act – shouldn’t he get his day in court to prove his innocence (in both countries)? If he did nothing wrong to the Americans, shouldn’t that come out in court??? What did you do to the Americans that you are so afraid of them Julian????
Is he that innocent and the system that corrupt???
It seems the court of public media is confusing me….-
The Huntress August 20, 2012
No, Quiet. No lives have been put at risk, no has anyone died or been injured as a result Wikileaks. This has also been (reluctantly) confirmed by the White House.
-
-
Pete Fumberger August 20, 2012
assange is a slimy little coward, unwilling to face questions about his alleged sexual indiscretions with 2 nubile Swedish nymphettes. IMHO.
All that has to happen is for his lawyers to get an assurance from the Swedish authorities that he will not be extradited to the US. It really is that simple. And once that is done, or if is not done, we will know much more than we do now.
If an assurance is given and he does not board the first plane to Stockholm, he must have done something wrong and does not wish to confront his accusers.
If the Swedes cannot give that assurance then there must be some credence to assange’s caterwauling.
I will go out on a limb and go with box number one. -
Susan August 20, 2012
Interesting that someone has to resort to seeking exile in another country’s embassy . Why? He had already answered questions and was not charged with anything. It is precisely because of Wikileaks that we are actually seeing this drama played out in public. The usual stories in conspiracy seem to actually be true in this case. How many other people are locked up for revealing War Crimes. There is an element of tit for tat here. We mistakedly shoot a whole heap of people in Iraq and you have will pay for the fact you revealled it for the rest of your life…. Sounds fair……
On another note. We were travelling on a long distance train in the States recently. This old codger strikes up a conversation with us. (Lovely bloke really!) The very moment he found out we were Australians his next question was….
“So what is your government doing about protecting Julian Assange. If they don’t do something we’re (Meaning our Government-USA ) are going to hang him. Mark my words.”
Neither of us had a reply. But I do get a sense that he knew what he was talking about…… -
The Huntress August 20, 2012
I applaud Ecuador for giving Assange asylum. As Australians, regardless of whether you support Wikileaks or Assange, we should be supporting the courage of Ecuador for providing support to one of our citizens, where our own government has failed. Gillard and her government should be hanging their heads in shame for the lack of response and unfounded accusations against one of our citizens.
I will continue my support of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Here’s to freedom of speech, transparency and a free press. Democracy.
-
Jill August 20, 2012
To The Huntress, I doubt if the USA would tell us of any injuries or deaths resulting from Wikileaks. This info would be classified – would give away too many more secrets.
Also Ecuador is protecting Julian Assange to provoke America – not for any philanthropic purposes. Their record re Human Rights has not been too good.-
The Huntress August 20, 2012
@ Jill
The original statement came from Wikileaks, that no-one has ever been harmed because of Wikileaks, which was confirmed by the US. If I noted that it came from Wikileaks alone some people would still remain sceptical.
I must also note (as I did on ‘The Conversation’) that the White House was given the opportunity to edit personal information that may have compromised individuals’ sercurity before the cables were dumped. The White House refused this opportunity.
-
-
Rosie August 20, 2012
After the allegations were made in Sweden Julian Assange made himself available for questioning by Swedish authorities for 5 weeks! After that time he sought and obtained permission from the Swedish Prosecutor to leave Sweden. He certainly did not try to run away. If the U.S. does not intend to pursue him why can’t they say so? I agree Alberta, we do need Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
-
SandsOfTime August 20, 2012
Wise women of the Hoopla, can someone please answer me this question? Why is there a fear that Assange will be extradited from Sweden, and not simply from the UK? The UK has a pretty sold record in willingly handing over suspects to the USA – it is hardly a haven for those escaping the hands of the US justice system. I’m honestly confused about this.
-
The Huntress August 20, 2012
@ SandsOfTime
Currently the US have no charges on which they can extradite Assange. He has broken no US or international law in relation to Wikileaks, so there is no way they can simply extradite him.
Currently there is a “secret” Grand Jury sitting in Virginia, plus an FBI contingent, desperately trying to come up with evidence linking Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, as this will be the only way the US will be able to prove charges of espionage. As Bradley Manning has not been trialled yet, Julian Assange states that the cables were received by Wikileaks anonymously and there is no previous connection between the two there is little the US can do. It doesn’t mean to say, however that they won’t do the same as they did with Hicks, which was to create a new law and apply it retrospectively. Scary stuff.
In short, as Sweden have stated that they will take Assange into protective custody upon extradition (even though he is NOT CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME) it would be easy for the US to state they wish to question Assange over allegations as well. The Swedish would likely hand Assange over to the US as their history shows they are normally compliant with the US’s demands. We would then get to watch another Australian citizen get lost in the US “justice” (I use that term very loosely” system of ‘enhanced interrogation’, long term imprisonment without charge or trial (Manning has now been held in custody for 819 days. The legal limit is 120. Let us not forget Hicks in custody for years without charge.) and death penalties. It is a huge risk for Assange to go to Sweden.
Let it not be forgotten that Assange has already answered to the Swedish prosecutor and sought permission to leave Sweden before the case was closed and then reopened. Assange has also been happy to answer the Swedish prosecutors questions, but has asked to be questioned by phone, video link or in person in the UK. In normal circumstances this would have been done, so we must ask why Sweden is so keen to pursue Assange in such a manner.
-
-
Monica August 20, 2012
Hi SandsOfTime, I havent heard any great explanation of why the US was unwilling to extradite from the UK. Bob Carr has said it is easier from the UK than Sweden. But the Wikileaks camp has said previously that the Swedes are beholden to Washington. I guess Assange and Wikileaks are pretty big fish and perhaps this is why the UK is being “coy” about it.
-
SandsOfTime August 20, 2012
Thanks Monica. To be honest, my gut reaction is that this is a smokescreen from a man who does not want to face the charges in Sweden. I am not sure why this man should be lauded for offering to be interviewed by the Swedes in London. As far as I know, that is not how justice works: one doesn’t usually get the chance to face charges on terms that are negotiated like that. I remain in genuine confusion!
-
Janet August 20, 2012
To attempt to put facts in a public arena where misinformation is the order of the day, here is a link to the former chief prosecutor’expert evidence to the British Courts in Jan. 2011. According to this one could surmise that the Swedes are using Ms A and Ms W ( the complainants) as political footballs in the rather extensive game of retribution against the embarressing (rather than dangerous) Wikileak documents. If we call for the release of the women from Pussy Riot, we should also be calling for the release of Bradley Manning.
-
The Huntress August 20, 2012
@ Janet
Indeed we should be calling for the release of Bradley Manning. 819 days without trial and conditions amounting to torture: how do we find this acceptable? It’s not.
-
-
Janet August 20, 2012
-
SonyaMath August 20, 2012
@Quiet and @Pete. I am all for him facing the charges in Sweden. I am all for the US trying him if they think they have cause – however – the US breeched the world’s trust and continues to do so with what they did/are doing in Guantanamo. This includes their capturing of the prisoners in Guantanamo illegally in other countries. The US has shown that they will break all international laws to do … (actually, I don’t what they hope to achieve). Any assurances from Sweden are null and void as the US has repeatedly shown that they will operate in another country to achieve their own means.
Australia is equally to blame given that they do not protect their own citizens from the US, although our representatives cannot necessarily be blamed for saying the US has no intentions – as if the US would give them the heads-up anyway.
The UK will NOT storm the embassy. All hell would break lose at every embassy around the world.
What Pussy Riot did wrong was by crossing the religious barrier with a political statement. No matter what your religious beliefs, even atheists, should find this abhorrent.
Congratulations on Ecuador for doing the most honourable thing. -
Monica August 20, 2012
SANDSOFTIME: I don’t think it is a case of Assange choosing how he wanted to be questioned. It is clear he has a genuine concern about the possibility of extradition from Sweden to the USA. If there is a smokescreen, I suspect its coming from the US and even Australia. Have a read of the SMH story cited in my story. It is telling.
-
SandsOfTime August 20, 2012
Thanks Monica. I still struggle to see how it’s more likely that he would face extradition from Sweden than he already does from the UK. That’s not to say there are not smoke and mirrors from various sources – this seems to be anything but straightforward. I don’t think that Mr Assange necssarily did himself any favours by not addressing the Swedish case at all in his balcony speech of yesterday, but that is just another layer of onion skin in the very complex case. Your headline says it all really!
-
rache August 21, 2012
Sweden sent prosecutors to Bosnia recently to interview a man about murder. But they refuse to travel to London to interview a man about allegations of not using a condom during consensual sex.
-
Monica August 21, 2012
The problem is we will debate this for the foreseeable future and might never know what the truth is about the US’s intentions because on the evidence thus far, they won’t tell us.
-
Peter August 21, 2012
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE….
