(MintPress) — Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and free speech activist, announced Thursday that he could stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy for up to a year while waiting for a solution to his battle to seek political asylum. Assange has been residing in London under diplomatic protection of the Ecuadorian Embassy since June 19.
The U.S. has sought Assange’s extradition for releasing private diplomatic cables and videos exposing government corruption and military crimes committed during both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
While Assange has good reason to fear extradition to the U.S., officials have not officially filed charges against him. With little public interest in his extradition, it appears possible that Assange might be granted safe passage to Ecuador should U.K. authorities cooperate. With Ecuadorian authorities assuring Assange that he can stay as long as he wants, the free speech activist may make his trip to the Ecuadorian Embassy an extended indefinite stay.
Asylum and international law
While some U.S. officials contend that Julian Assange revealed state secrets and compromised national security, many others believe that he has exposed government crimes, giving the public greater transparency into the workings of the military and intelligence agencies.
The labels “refugee” and “asylum” carry a specific legal definition and are not arbitrary titles.
The U.N. defines a refugee under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as anyone:
“Owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
This convention was expanded upon in 1967 when the U.N. adopted the “Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.” This removed several geographic restrictions in the previous legislation while giving more countries the opportunity to become signatories.
Ecuador is a signatory to both conventions while the U.S. signed only the 1967 protocol.
Although officials from England, Ecuador, the U.S. and Sweden have not mentioned the possibility, Article 4 of the 1967 protocol has a provision for settling asylum disputes. Any state involved in the dispute can take its quarrel to the International Court of Justice to seek a settlement.
According to Article 4., the settlement of disputes states, “Any dispute between States Parties to the present Protocol which relates to its interpretation or application and which cannot be settled by other means shall be referred to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one of the parties to the dispute.”
Sweden, while interested in questioning Assange over a supposed sexual assault case, has expressed opposition to his extradition to the U.S. Sweden has banned the death penalty and opposes the use of capital punishment against criminals.
Rafael Correa decided to grant Julian Assange political asylum earlier this month after a lengthy deliberation with other members of his cabinet. However, the decision by no means guarantees Assange safe passage from the U.K. to Ecuador.
Likely outcomes
With no standing case filed against him, Assange may only face extradition to the Sweden. However, those familiar with the turbulent history of WikiLeaks look to the treatment of Bradley Manning as reason to worry about the fate of the WikiLeaks founder.
Bradley Manning, a former member of the U.S. military, shared a classified video with WikiLeaks, later titled, “Collateral Murder.” The 2007 video shows the indiscriminate murder of innocent Iraqi civilians and journalists from a helicopter gunship. Manning was detained in 2010 and is set to be tried this February. If convicted on charges of “aiding the enemy,” Manning could face life in prison.
Despite the harsh crackdown on whistleblowers, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Aug. 27 that Assange was overstating U.S. claims, saying he was making “wild assertions about us, when, in fact, his issue with the government of the United Kingdom has to do with whether he’s going to go … face justice in Sweden for something that has nothing to do with WikiLeaks.”
Indeed, a few members of the U.S. Congress have also spoken out against Assange’s extradition, including Ron Paul (R-Texas). During his speech made just before the RNC last week, Paul defended Assange saying, “I’m afraid that if we took a poll across the country and said, ‘Should we try Assange for treason?’ that most Americans would say, ‘Oh yes he’s a bad guy, he’s telling us all these secrets.’ But guess what, he’s an Australian citizen.”
Without a clear solution to the conflict, Assange has continued to enjoy diplomatic protection at the Ecuadorian Embassy under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. As of March, 173 countries ratified the convention, respecting the sovereignty and protection of foreign embassies.
Despite signing the convention, U.K. authorities threatened to invade the Ecuadorian Embassy earlier this month to arrest Assange. The warning incensed Ecuadorian authorities, claiming that such a move would violate their national sovereignty and consular protection.
Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino responded to the announcement writing, “Ecuador rejects in the most emphatic terms the explicit threat of the British official communication,” adding, “Ecuador is not a British colony.”
While the U.K. has since rescinded the threat, the debate over greater government transparency continues to pit WikiLeaks against members of the intelligence community. Throughout the ordeal, Assange has vowed to continue his crusade for free speech and greater government transparency.
A champion for free speech
“I haven’t had a lifelong campaign against authority. Legitimate authority is important. All human systems require authority, but authority must be granted as a result of the informed consent of the governed. Presently, the consent, if there is any, is not informed, and therefore it’s not legitimate,” said Assange in a January interview with Rolling Stone Magazine.
Assange contends that his mission is not a baseless exercise in smearing a foreign government but rather a necessary function of free speech. By promoting greater transparency in government and the military, Assange believes that citizens can make well informed decisions about the most pressing political issues.
“To communicate knowledge, we must protect people’s privacy – and so I have been, for 20 years, developing systems and policy and ideals to protect people’s rights to communicate privately without government interference, without government surveillance. The right to communicate without government surveillance is important, because surveillance is another form of censorship,” added Assange in the interview.
The belief shared by many of Assange’s followers is that when citizens suspect government surveillance, even innocent people with nothing to hide begin to self-censor and curtail speech out of fear.
The issue of self-censorship and arbitrary government detention is one that free speech advocates and opponents of the National Defense of Authorization Act (NDAA) have fought against in the U.S. in recent months.
Even before the embassy crisis, while Assange was under house arrest in England, he continued to conduct interviews with well known academics, authors, human rights activists and world leaders on his Russia Today show, “The World Tomorrow.”
Assange interviewed President Rafael Correa in the sixth episode of his show earlier this summer. The two maintained an amiable on camera exchange, prompting some to believe that Correa’s decision to extend political asylum was more than a mere political consideration, but rather a move to defend a personal friend.