Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted political asylum by Ecuador, but he remains holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. If he leaves the compound, he will be arrested and extradited to Sweden, where he faces allegations of sexual assault. Assange denies the allegations and claims they are part of an effort to get him to the United States to face more serious charges related to his work for WikiLeaks. High-profile defenders like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone have recently published editorials in support of Assange. Now, professor and activist Noah Chomsky weighs in.
Julian Assange faces serious accusations from two women in Sweden, yet you’ve said that any decent country should grant him asylum. Why?
The accusations should be taken quite seriously, just as all such accusations should. Independent of that, no decent country would permit a person to be sent to a country where the chances of his receiving a fair trial are very limited. The apparent conflict can be easily resolved. Sweden claims only that they want to interrogate Assange. They have been invited to do that in England, or in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. They refuse. They could also issue a statement that they will not extradite Assange to the United States. They refuse.
Suppose that Assange had leaked Russian, rather than American, documents, and the circumstances were otherwise the same. Then Sweden would not hesitate for a moment to question Assange in the United Kingdom and to guarantee that he would not be extradited to Russia. Those who think that this analogy is unfair have something to learn about contemporary history. They can, for example, look at the brutal and criminal treatment of Bradley Manning, to take one of many examples.
It is worth adding that Sweden is quite willing to follow Washington’s orders in even worse circumstances than this – for example, when the United States wanted Sweden to send someone to Mubarak’s Egypt to be tortured.
According to documents published by WikiLeaks, the Ecuadorian government doesn’t support freedom of the press domestically. Is it hypocritical for Assange to accept asylum from such a country?
Of course not, no more than it is hypocritical for him to stay in London, which has a shameful record of violation of freedom of press – of course, targeting weak and defenseless journals, so that it passes without comment. As for the charges against Ecuador, they should be evaluated seriously, just like those against England, France, and others. But it is irrelevant here.
What’s at stake here?
At stake is the question of whether the citizens of a country have a right to know what their elected officials are doing. Those who have a lingering affection for an odd notion called “democracy” believe that this is important. To be sure, a state has the right to keep some matters secret. I haven’t read all the WikiLeaks exposures, but I have read quite a few, and I have not seen an example of anything that could legitimately be kept secret, nor, to my knowledge, have the horde of angry critics presented an example. I should say that this is not unusual. Anyone who has spent time studying declassified documents is well aware that overwhelmingly, they are kept secret to protect elected officials from the scrutiny of citizens, not for defense or some other legitimate purpose.
Someone who courageously carries out actions in defense of democratic rights deserves applause, not hysterical denunciation and punishment. We understand that very well with regard to official enemies. Since you bring up the matter of “hypocrisy,” it is the extreme of hypocrisy to refuse to apply the same standards to ourselves.
© Japan Today
27 Comments
Login to comment
ben4short
Right on, old friend Noam. Hats off to Mr. Assange!!
gaijinfo
Never trust an argument from a linguist as slippery as Chomsky. Guys like him are good at talking in circles without really giving any evidence or logic to support their claims.
That being said, all political bodies are corrupt, and none of them would give Assange a fair shake. Not because he revealed any damaging secrets, most of his leaks were mid to low level security. It's just that he embarrassed a lot of corrupt politicians, and they ain't gonna let him get away with it.
It's more of a collective personal grudge than any security violation.
Aliasis
If Assange is guilty of his alleged rape crime, that's horrible and he should be punished. That being said, there's some obvious political seediness at play, it seems pretty clear a lot of people are trying to get him locked up and treat him like a villain.0 Wikileaks is heroic and ought to be treated separately. Governments SHOULD be held accountable for their crimes and corruption.
More than Assange, the one who actually uncovered military war crimes, Bradley Manning is a hero. And it's disgusting what the US is doing to him (a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, by the way).
Suzu1
Noam Chomsky is a crank who long ago lost any pretense of credibility. Among his many bizarre claims is that the genocide in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge didn't happen. The testimony of millions of Cambodian eyewitness nonwithstanding. Assange is no advocate for tranparency. He has threatened Wikileaks employees for even discussing his shady leadership. His selective editing in the Iraq "journalist" killing to hide the footage of the deceased carrying an AK-47 should have tipped everyone that this is not someone who values the truth. Now Assange is holed up in the embassy of a country run by an authoritarian, Correa, who has shut down free press in his country. They deserve each other.
Del Ihle
If Assange is guilty of rape and assault, why on earth should be be applauded? Chomsky's premise is ridiculous!
"Now Assange is holed up in the embassy of a country run by an authoritarian, Correa, who has shut down free press in his country. They deserve each other."
By all means YES!
Tamarama
Aliasis
He isn't charged with rape, the complaint was 'unprotected consensual intercourse' and it was initially withdrawn and the case closed by the Swedish police.
Suzu1
Noam Chomsky does not claim this. "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury" Chomsky, from the documentary 'Manufacturing Consent'. 1993.
Ranger_Miffy2
Good to read the steady words of Prof. Chomsky. The whole red herring of these charges is suspicious. How were they coerced, and by whom, to bring these charges when initially they did not want to?
Suzu1
Chomsky made two arguments in his Political Economy of Human Rights. The first was that, based on his assembly of "alternative data", which meant sources in obscure radical magazines, leftist activist/tourist accounts, etc. that either 1) there was no genocide in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge, or 2) if genocide did occur it was someone the resonsibility of the U.S. for somehow provoking Pol Pot's forces into slaughtering their own people in the name of communism. Any article by Chomsky is always predictable because Chomsky only has one conclusion that he can ever make - anything wrong in the world has to be the fault of the U.S. It is sad that so many well-intentioned are taken in by his usual blizzard of references to fringe sources. A couple of months ago Amy Goodman of Democracy Now had Chomsky as a guest and it was painful to listen to as he droned on and on and never really answered a direct question. He's Exhibit A in the case against tenure.
GW
suzu1
actually you make Chomsky sound like yr run of the mill republican LOL!
Virtuoso
Chomsky is of the mind that political fanatics and ruthless dictators are justified in their behavior, and that by by according them magnanimous treatment they will reciprocate accordingly. I'm really glad nobody has appointed him a US federal judge, or he would have emptied out the prisons (and lunatic asylums) by now.
illsayit
I like this article and how it reads. The only thing that I feel needs saying is that Assange I feel was mistaken in mentioning Russia in his recent speech. I am guessing that is because it is recent, and his situation is starting to cause him to guess a little. For the same reason he chose Eucador, I feel for those same reasons, he should not have referred to the Pussy Riot incident in Russia recently--but jus sayin
Frungy
Obviously some people here have been in Japan too long and think that accusation = guilt. At the moment Assange is innocent. Get that through your heads.
Once you accept that fact then you have to look at what he's done. He revealed a whole lot of information that was in the public interest and revealed that governments were up to stuff that the public would NEVER approve of. In short he showed that governments are abusing the classification process to hide information from voters so they can't vote in an informed and democratic fashion. He's the greatest hero of true democracy of this century.
The U.S. and other constitutions contain explicit clauses forbidding governments to censor, classify or otherwise hide relevant information from the public. Assange has proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that most of the world governments are traitors, in clear violation of their own constitutions, yet people are baying for Assange's blood, not their governments'? ... you get the sort of government you deserve. Wake up and start blaming the RIGHT people, your lying, illegal governments.
philly1
You mean the fact of the charges are that after consenting to intercourse the accusers filed a complaint that he wouldn't wear a condom--or the like? Whatever happened to responsibility for insisting, "Sorry. We're not going any further with this unless..."?
If so, what a trumped up and transparent bit of manipulation in order to extradite a man. Nothing taints a reputation like a charge of "sexual assault." Alas, Frungy, when it comes to charges of sexual assault most people assume the party charged must be at least somewhat guilty. They "reason" that no one would make such an accusation if it were not true. Innocence, even if proven is largely irrelevant. Such innocence even if proven "beyond doubt" fails to erase doubt in people's minds. A brilliant smoke-screen for abusive governments to obfuscate the issue as Frungy points out. And even at the risk of sounding paranoid, it's not beyond the ability of government to reward the accusers and hide that too.
Bernie Campbell
He is a true Maverick and freedom fighter!
Frungy
Initially Assange was wanted for questioning in terms of Sweden's controversial new law requiring full disclosure, with the women concerned alleging that because Assange slept with them without revealing the other relationship there wasn't sufficient disclosure. Then later they shifted to different allegations, and now they've settled on the unprotected sex angle.
The charges keep changing, and frankly I'm deeply suspicious of a the motives behind the charges. As an average "reasonable man" it seems ludicrous that they'd pursue these charges since any case would be thrown out of court in short order, since both parties agree that there was initally consensual sex, but the disputed issue (condom useage or non-useage) is impossible to establish. It devolves into a "he said, she said" mess and it is impossible to establish beyond a doubt. Assange will allege that she agreed to unprotected sex or the condom broke or something that'll explain any DNA evidence, and she'll allege she didn't agree or that the condom didn't break, and there the case will stall.
The inability to successfully prosecute this case only leaves one possible motive for pursuing the issue, the political motive to get Assange to a country where he can be abducted and taken to Guantanemo or a similar facility and denied his human rights and tortured. Frankly no right-thinking human being should support this extra-judicial high-handed action by a morally bankrupt administration more interested in covering up the truth than correcting their mistakes.
Ironically, if they succeed the other operators of wikileaks will probably treat Assange as a martyr and release all the sensitive information they hold, regardless of who they harm (up until now they've tried to hold back sensitive information, but have found it difficult to identify what is sensitive since governments flatly deny all knowledge even though it could help save lives). If this turns into a disaster the governments only have themselves to blame.
Christina O'Neill
If any country commits attrocities or political injustices, then thinks placing such acts under the juristiction of the official secrets act, to prevent publication, is democraticly in breach of the very standards they claim to upholld. I believe that Mr Assange should return to Sweden to answer to the charges submitted against him, but on the understanding that any extradition which may be sought by the U.S. will be totaly disregarded. Long live Wikileaks1
Frungy
Chistina, do you honestly think that the U.S. will even both with extradition? Guantanemo has shown the world how the U.S. doesn't give a fig for human rights, international law, or even their own legal processes when it comes to other countries' citizens. If you're not a U.S. citizen the U.S. has made it abundantly clear that you have NO human rights in their opinion.
... a little ironic for a country that claims to be the global defender of human rights (but read the small print, only if you're a U.S. citizen).
No, if Assange goes to Sweden he'll end up somewhere very unpleasant. The BEST he can hope for is a trial in the U.S., the worst... a lifetime (which may be very short) of "enhanced interrogation" and then a shallow unmarked grave.
fds
ASSange not very courageous in my book. if he was courageous he would face the music rather than pandering to petty tyrants to fulfill their political agenda.
Frungy
I think you're mixing up courage and stupidity. Courage is living to continue fighting the good fight, even though it means living in fear.
Stupidity is handing yourself over to a government that has a proven an undeniable track record of imprisoning and torturing people without trial.
Assange has internet access where he is now, can continue to release information and serve as a figurehead. If he handed himself over he's have no internet access, and would probably disappear forever.
By your logic George Washington should have handed himself over to English forces during the American war of Indepdence, since (by the standards of the time) he was a traitor in rebellion against the government of the time. What a different world we'd live in.
Star-viking
The man is accused of having non-consensual, unprotected sex with women. He does not deny the latter - which makes him a self-centred idiot in my eyes.
For more on the things Choamsky rails about, check the noted liberal UK legal blogger David Alan-Green's piece on his legal situation (which concludes he'd be safer going to Sweden!): http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
lucabrasi
@Star-viking
Oh no he isn't. He's been accused of precisely nothing. Not a thing. The Swedish authorities will not charge him. His unwillingness to return to Sweden under such bizarre circumstances is therefore, I'd suggest, perfectly understandable, given the possibility of extradition to the US and the hellishness that would entail.
Star-viking
Not true. Assange is wanted for arrest by the Swedish authorities - see point four in my link above.
arrestpaul
Frungy
Star-Viking - The article is irrelevant, since the U.S. doesn't give a fig about procedure. Just look at how the handled suspected terrorists (about 90% of whom were found not guilty in courts of law), when they abducted them from their countries and then tortured them.
David Allen Green assumed that everyone is playing by the rules, but that clearly isn't the case.
Jaymann
Assange is being set up by a US government clearly in a vindictive state of mind. They are furious that Assange was able to display to the world many of the US's underhanded and unfriendly diplomatic dealings with friend and foe alike. Chomsky's point (and it is completely consistent with this immense intellectual's previous statments) is that governments need to be held accountable - especially those that claim a moral high ground (e.g The United States) to sanction otherwise unethical deeds (like invading a country under false pretenses).
Chomsky once wrote a forward championing an horrifically unpalatable diatribe on the holocaust (a holocaust denier). His point was not that the content was in any way accurate - but rather that in a society that champions 'free speech" (a lovely fiction) - we must allow 'free speech' to all, no matter how unpalatable.
Well done yet again Professor.
kurisupisu
Mr Assange is a journalist and it is to that calling that Wikileaks speaks.
Are authoritarian governments to be allowed to hide salient facts from their citizens and to hold in camera meetings that lead to their own citizens being executed by the state?
Julian Assange may not be a paragon of virtue in some eyes, but neither is he an assassin nor he is he a war monger
In fact, it could be argued that his actions have saved lives.
If it were the case that that even if one life has been saved by the actions of Mr Assange then the campaign to have him silenced is insidious.
Unless, there is a balance in society that Julian Assange has promoted then the weak will suffer.