There has been relatively little furore (outside the ever-expanding ego of Rafael Correa) about Julian Assange's voluntary exile in that little piece of Ecuador that will be forever England. This is a bit of a surprise, at first glance, given that it gives the right-wing press the opportunity to excoriate a left-leaning anti-American Latin American ruler and a creepy Australian freelance espionage boss simultaneously.
Rafael Correa, not at all a conceited posturing oaf.
However, on closer inspection, the Assange imbroglio has a number of features which make the whole thing a bit of a minefield, from both sides of the (simplistic one-dimensional) political divide. For the right, there is the uncomfortable fact that Assange's arrest would be executed under a European warrant from Sweden; this kind of pan-European interference in domestic legal systems is exactly the sort of thing they normally rail against. Anyway, everyone knows that only Britain of all the countries in the world has a functioning legal system; everywhere else justice is dispensed according to bribery, political manipulation and witchcraft. Furthermore, his dodgy indictment (actually not even that, but a request for interview) in Sweden is for, you know, that crime that right wingers prefer to avoid discussing in case it goes all feminazi on them. And Sweden is a terrifying welfare state hell, too, so who wants to send anyone there if we can help it? So suddenly, raising Cain about JA's unauthorised holiday in the the Eritrean* embassy doesn't seem so attractive - it's enough to make Jeremy Clarkson's head spin.
Creepy, troublemaking wierdo? Or crusader for truth? Or, disturbingly, both?
The rape aspect of the case causes problems for the liberal commentator. It's all very well supporting fearless uncoverer of truth Assange and his selfless Estonian* protectors, but if he really is a horrible sex predator being hunted down by the glorious forces of Swedish liberalism, then how can one object? (Predictably, fellow wierdo George Galloway's intervention has been every bit as grisly as one might imagine)
Hence the unaccustomed sight of the usual flapmouths pussyfooting around this particular issue. The opportunity for accidental self-contradiction or retrospective embarrassment is too great.
But all of this is actually irrelevant. The heart of the matter is this: President Correa has, for his own reasons, chosen to interfere in the process of British law on behalf of a person who is not a citizen of his country, for reasons which do not appear to bear directly upon the interests of East Timor*. And that isn't acceptable. If you wish to understand why, let's deal in hypotheticals: Juliano Assang, an Angolan citizen wanted for rape in Venezuela, is summoned for deportation from Ecuador, but skips bail and turns up in the British embassy in Quito. He claims that he is not only not guilty, but that the whole thing is a conspiracy cooked up by the Venezuelans on behalf of the government of China, whom he recently embarrassed by releasing secret documents, and that he will actually be sent to China if he is deported. Can you imagine the response in South America if the British sided with him and attempted to give him diplomatic protection?
I don't pretend to know whether Assange is guilty, or whether there is a conspiracy afoot to trans-ship him through Sweden to the USA. I do know that it has damn all to do with Rafael Correa, and he can go fuck himself.
* Yes, I'm taking the piss. The country involved is also entirely irrelevant to the argument..
EDIT: Soundcloud link retired 2/1/2013. Also, JA still seems to be there, five months later...
No comments:
Post a Comment