Assange's Last Stand: 'Internet Freedom' Revisited

Now this is more like it: diplomatic intrigue, a kooky character, lurid accusations...and American baddies to boot (the last does "Diddley" Bo Xilai one better).

The New York Times has a--how should I put this...piquant account of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. Living in a rabbit hole of a diplomatic premise just off Harrods (I could bring you there even while stone drunk), it was perhaps inevitable that Ecuador grant him asylum, so no surprises there.

However, there are a number of interesting twists, most obviously that the embassy is heavily watched by British security forces for signs that the Ecuadoreans may attempt to smuggle Assange out of the country. That said, there are several twists and turns that make this story particularly fascinating.

1. While I do appreciate that Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa styles himself as a leftist par excellence and a strong ally of Hugo Chavez who would like nothing more than to embarrass the United States, Correa is not exactly a stickler for media freedoms of the kind Assange champions. Persecution of opposition figures is no the rise, and Reporters Without Borders sees the country in decline with regard to media freedoms. I guess the message Correa is implicitly sending out is that certain media messages are more welcome than others when they mock less welcome characters like Americans.

2. Swedes are, in my experience, generally left-of-centre characters, so I am inclined to give them the benefit of a doubt that the case of Assange has merit. That is, they would not go to such lengths to try a character Swedes are generally sympathetic to if there was no reason for doing so. To be honest, Assange does not exactly strike me as a "normal" chap, either.

3. OTOH, that there are no guarantees that extradition to Sweden may result in a further extradition to the United States over WikiLeaks. At the least, this is the sticking point Ecuadorean officials identify:

The [Ecuadorean] minister said his government had taken the decision after the authorities in Britain, Sweden and the United States had refused to give guarantees that, if Mr. Assange were extradited to Sweden, he would not then be sent on to America to face other charges. The minister said his government had taken the decision after the authorities in Britain, Sweden and the United States had refused to give guarantees that, if Mr. Assange were extradited to Sweden, he would not then be sent on to America to face other charges...

Those close to Mr. Assange have said one reason he does not want to be sent to Sweden is that he fears being charged with crimes in the United States for the release in 2010 of thousands of secret documents and diplomatic cables relating to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to American relations with other governments. 

An Ecuadorean official said late Wednesday that the British government had made it clear it would not allow Mr. Assange to leave the country to travel to Ecuador, so even with a grant of asylum or similar protection, he would probably remain stuck in the embassy.

Bottom line: The United States has done much to make a martyr out of a dodgy character and a mockery of the quite frankly laughable notion of "Internet Freedom." Meanwhile, Ecuador is probably glad enough to get itself some cheap points from the leftist crowd for harbouring Assange for an extended period. Lastly, the United Kingdom probably wishes the guy never set foot in Blighty since it's a lose-lose situation

Read More

Occupy Wall Street, New Anti-Globalization Flunkies

Some people never learn. One of the recurring complaints about the so-called anti-globalization movement has been its lack of an actionable and coherent agenda. In many ways, anti-globalization is a step backwards from being a counter-hegemonic force from Marxist thought--many of whose elements it borrows but then mucks up with its own flights of fancy. Occupy Wall Street is even worse. While I certainly don't begrudge those wishing to curtail the influence of certain financial institutions--even mainstream figures do the same--you have to wonder if these all-purpose rants have any chance of effecting anything significant.

Consider the large logical inconsistencies about these all-purpose gatherings to complain about whatever annoys certain folks. For starters:

1. Why is "Wall Street" a target for those concerned with the environment? Financial services are not a carbon-intensive form of economic activity compared to, say, heavy manufacturing of the sort United Automobile Workers protest participants are engaged in and apparently wish to revive Stateside. So, why is "Occupy Detroit" so poorly attended by comparison?

2. What is the purpose of this trendy reference to the "revolutionary Arab Spring tactic" which is no more than a rip-off of the Philippine "People Power" idea of half a century ago? Or, even far before that, Gandhian principles of nonviolent resistance? Examples of successful, relatively bloodless regime change do predate those in today's Middle East.

3. As I always like to point out, the momentary euphoria of regime change alike that in Egypt--these people keep mentioning Tahrir Square--often masks the reality that the alternatives are not necessarily better overall. Witness Egypt's current descent into sectarian violence absent a stabilizing force:

As the exuberance of Arab Spring becomes a faraway memory in the Middle East, a counterrevolution is gaining ground, exploiting the sectarianism that power brokers in the region have long used to keep their populations at bay.

4. Invoking that all-pervasive of conspiracy theories, what does protesting the Afghan invasion have to do with "Wall Street"? As far as I can tell, it's been a money-losing misadventure that those who invaded it are urgently trying to extricate themselves from. Nor is Goldman Sachs in a hurry to set up shop in downtown Kabul, as far as I can tell. If Afghanistan is a money grab, it must be of financial "dark matter."
--------------------

The New York Times has an article which relays similar criticisms. While it's easy to make demands alike "universal employment"--why not add six-figure pay while you're at it--there is a world of difference here between reality and ambition. Heck, they even fail to lay out grand, unachievable designs:

In New York, the demands committee held a two-hour open forum last Monday, coming up with two major categories: jobs for all and civil rights. The team will continue to meet twice a week to develop a list of specific proposals, which it will then discuss with protesters and eventually take to the General Assembly, a nightly gathering of the hundreds of protesters in the park.

Absent anything concrete, it is what it is--a mildly bothersome anarchist movement with the usual leftist sympathizers worldwide. Not that many of its participants necessarily disown the "anarchist" characterization:

In Boston, Meghann Sheridan wrote on the group’s Facebook page, “The process is the message.” In Baltimore, Cullen Nawalkowsky, a protester, said by phone that the point was a “public sphere not moderated by commodities or mainstream political discourse.” An Occupy Cleveland participant, Harrison Kalodimos, is even writing a statement about why demands are not the answer. Joseph Schwartz, a political science professor and an Occupy Philadelphia participant, said he thought the movement’s “anarchist strain” discouraged a demand-making environment.

If these people actually knew what they stood for, perhaps more serious-minded people would pay them some attention. As it stands, leave it to the likes of Krugman to be impressed. Here you have today's rebels without a cause.

Read More