FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Everyone’s Assange

by BINOY KAMPMARK

Julian Assange has a few tricks left up his sleeve after his 16-month battle to avoid extradition to Sweden, and seeking asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London has been one of them.  He has managed to throw an assortment of spanners into the works of state since becoming a figure of notoriety.  He has, for instance, made a threat to run for a seat in the Australian Senate, an apt riposte to Australia’s indifference in mounting consular interventions on his behalf.  He has been given his own program on the Russian network RT.

He has proven to be such a tempestuous tease.  He puzzles feminists holding court because of his apparent disposition to women. (The allegations of sexual abuse are proven in advance when it comes to matters of ideology – for them, trials are irrelevant.) He enrages state authorities for an almost glib attitude to classified information – I get it, I reveal it.  He annoys journalists for cutting their ill-fed grass – this is ‘scientific’ journalism in action, information raw and pure.  And the psychobabble cohorts are out wanting him on the couch for analysis.  Are you well, Mr Assange?

Mr Assange, in fact, seems better than ever.  When the rules of the game are becoming clearer, he changes them.  He is fast becoming a postmodern hobby horse for those who would wish he never existed – everyone has their version of Assange, their own version of the nervous computer nerd who made it to several most wanted lists, who has openly been branded a saboteur and terrorist.  In a sense, all of the opinions might have a kernel of truth to them.  In the end, most don’t matter.  What matters is that Assange has become indispensable.

The response to Assange’s application for asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy has almost been giddy with variance.  There are those who regard it as brilliant.  Ray McGovern of Consortium News (Jun 20) finds the choice of Ecuador a good one given President Rafael Correa’s firm stance against Washington.  “Correa has been a harsh critic of U.S. behavior toward Ecuador and its Latin American neighbors as well as an outspoken fan of WikiLeaks.”

McGovern is also happy to speculate as to why Assange was allowed, lest he be some sort of “Houdini”, to escape his security fetters and wind up inside the Ecuadorean embassy to begin with, given its location behind Harrods department store.  The British would have surely been aware of the warm Ecuadorean stance towards Assange’s plight.  In November 2010, Correa’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kintoo Lucas openly stated that, “We are open to giving him residency in Ecuador, without any problem and without any conditions.”  Lucas’s wings were subsequently clipped – he had gone too far in stating an official position, but the point had been made.

The Ecuadoreans have been assessing whether, in Correa’s words, there is “any death threat against Julian Assange.  We have to analyze his reasons for requesting asylum if [it] has due process.”  Ecuadorean envoy Ana Alban has expressed no desire to offend “a country we hold in such deep regard as the United Kingdom.”  Nothing with the computer celebrity has ever been straight forward.

The reaction from conservative commentators such as Ray Walser, writing for the Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry (Jun 21), reveal’s a naughty, nefarious Assange who is paranoid and indifferent to state security.  Such points, however, recede into the background.  The traditional bully boy intentions of the US, using that ever worn threat of economic blackmail, are what matters.  “A favorable decision for asylum for Assange would be ill-timed considering the fact that Ecuador’s eligibility for Andean Trade Preferences is currently under review by the U.S. Trade Representative and ultimately by the U.S. Congress.”  There was, for Walser, only one victim in this – the U.S. State Department.

There is perhaps only one thing observers of the Assange imbroglio agree upon – the spiced element of drama, the piquant expectation of a surprise around the corner.  Joan Smith, writing in The Independent (Jun 21), described Assange as a “fabulist, someone who stretches and distorts the truth to make himself look exciting in the eyes of his diminishing band of followers.”

Don’t fall for the psychodrama of the “eccentric” Assange, claims Smith.  Peer past his liberal tendencies towards information and mendacious governments, and you get an Assange “relaxed about links with authoritarian regimes,” hysterical about his fate and “shopping for human rights near Harrods.”  Should Ecuador accede to the wishes of the Australian, they would merely be pandering to the farce.

Assange as the holder of rights rather than the disentitling tendencies of narcissism is what appeals to commentators such as Glenn Greenwald (The Guardian, Jun 20).  “There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks has violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917.”  Countries might well be harassed into surrendering subjects – and Sweden could hardly be said to be immune to that, given its assistance to the CIA in rendering two suspected terrorists to Egypt, both of whom were subsequently tortured.  The UN Human Rights Committee found Sweden’s conduct in that regard a violation of the global torture ban in 2006.

Assange is the withering flower of the confused Zeitgeist we find ourselves in, the opportunistic hacker who extols liberty while channeling cultish imagery, the information specialist who only cares for content over effect, the revealer who keeps secrets because he knows he can, and tells everyone he has them.  In that sense, he is merely the symptom of the very states that seek to control, if not eliminate him altogether.  The theatre of deception is the only reality that matters in the game of high politics, and Assange’s real sin is that he sought to challenge that monopoly with his insolence.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Cambridge.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail