Let Assange go

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange prepares to speak from the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy where  he continues to seek asylum following an extradition request from Sweden.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange prepares to speak from the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy where he continues to seek asylum following an extradition request from Sweden.

Assange has been in detention at the embassy for over three years, unable to leave, because of the threat of arrest under a warrant issued by Sweden, allegedly on charges of sexual molestation and rape.



By Balakrishnan Rajagopal (Spotlight)

Published: Mon 8 Feb 2016, 11:00 PM

Last updated: Tue 9 Feb 2016, 9:54 AM

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) recently ruled that the continued deprivation of personal liberty of Julian Assange is arbitrary, and therefore illegal, under international human rights law. The 3-1 ruling is a victory for the rule of law in global affairs and a severe indictment of the outlaw tactics of the United States and its satellite countries, such as the United Kingdom and Sweden. What remains to be seen is whether the UK and Sweden recognise their legal and moral obligation to comply with this ruling and end the continued incarceration of Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Assange has been in detention at the embassy for over three years, unable to leave, because of the threat of arrest under a warrant issued by Sweden, allegedly on charges of sexual molestation and rape. His real fear has been that he will be arrested and taken to Sweden, and then handed off or renditioned to American law enforcement or intelligence for prosecution in the US, where charges remain pending against him. The charges in the US do not relate to common crimes such as the ones he is facing in Sweden, but stem from his assiduous and courageous stewardship of Wikileaks, which has posed an existential threat to the military industrial complex and the global ruling class by revealing so many of its dirty secrets.
The WGAD ruling
For consideration before the WGAD were three questions: First, does the deprivation of liberty of Assange qualify as 'arbitrary detention', given that he voluntarily took refuge at the embassy and was granted diplomatic asylum by Ecuador? Second, is the indefinite and continued deprivation of his liberty in violation of human rights norms relating to the guarantee of a right to fair and speedy trial, and freedom of movement? Third, should the UK and Sweden recognise the diplomatic asylum granted to Assange by Ecuador?
The WGAD ruled that Assange has continuously been in detention since 2010, first in a British prison, then under house arrest and then at the Ecuadorian embassy where he fled seeking asylum.
The idea that Assange 'voluntarily' resides at the Ecuadorian embassy and is free to leave at any moment is belied by facts. The Swedish prosecution has clearly stated as recently as 2014 that Assange is 'in detention', and has not withdrawn the arrest warrant against him. The British police have maintained that they will arrest Assange even if the arrest warrant against him is withdrawn, as he violated the 'house arrest' rules when he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy to seek asylum - although the original Swedish warrant was the very reason for the house arrest in the first place!
Indeed, as the WGAD found, on the narrower technical grounds of fair trial and judicial process guarantees, the detention of Assange is arbitrary.
The right to diplomatic asylum
The final issue of whether European states should recognise the diplomatic asylum granted to Assange by Ecuador and allow him safe passage out of the embassy to that country is not legally central to the ruling, but is a large matter that casts its shadow on the geopolitics of international law. Sweden and the UK have taken the view that 'diplomatic asylum' is not universally recognised under international law and they are not obliged to accept a Latin American regional practice, under which diplomatic asylum is indeed more recognised.
European states have a long history of denying the legitimacy of alternative interpretations or rules of international law by denying their universality, while asserting their own narrow interpretations as universal rules.
Besides, the European states are being hypocritical in calling for universal recognition of the regional law of the EU, while refusing to recognise the regional law of others. What is obvious is that the old colonial attitudes denying legitimacy to non-European states sill permeate the very core of what we call international law.
The case of Assange, like that of Bradley Manning, the abused and forgotten victim of the American 'legal' system, is likely to now be determined by global public opinion and the attitude of ruling elites in Sweden and the UK. The ruling by the WGAD is a major blow to the specious, illegal and vindictive attitudes of the US and the European states, and substantially strengthens global public opinion, which remains opposed to the injustice meted to Assange. It is time now for the Obama administration to drop the charges against Assange and suspend any threat of extradition, and for the UK and Sweden to show humanitarian concern for Assange and equal respect for other nations.
Balakrishnan Rajagopal is Associate Professor of Law and Development, and the founder of the Displacement Research and Action Network at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The Wire


More news from OPINION
Identity overlap while being on the move

Opinion

Identity overlap while being on the move

For a slice of the global population that is geographically mobile, at times even settling down in a ‘foreign’ land, the idea of a motherland is watered down. as plurality kicks in, your ‘origins’ get blurred

Opinion1 week ago