WikiLeaks Julian Assange: a hero or a villain?

By S.P.SETH

WikiLeaks will, most likely, end up as a dreaded word in the annals of diplomatic history. Nothing like this has happened before on such a scale. The disclosure of these American diplomatic cables, with comments on personalities, politics and policies of countries doing business with the United States, provides a rare insight into global politics, albeit with an American bias.

The Australian founder of the WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is regarded either as a hero or a monstrous villain (depending on one’s viewpoint) for upsetting the staid diplomatic applecart by blowing the whistle. The Americans—across the political spectrum--- are baying for his blood for baring their diplomatic cupboard for all and sundry to see. And believe me it is not a pretty sight.

Coincidentally or otherwise, he is up against warrants for his arrest on charges of raping two Swedish women while in Sweden, where he had set up his WikiLeaks offices; hoping that he would have a more empathetic establishment in that country. Even the Interpol was alerted to his alleged crime.

The British have now got him and he is in their lock up. He will now face proceedings for extradition to Sweden

Indeed, earlier charges against him on this count had been dropped in Sweden for want of evidence. The question then is: why was the rape charge been raked up again? It certainly seems too fortuitous to be taken at face value.

It is true that Asange had sexual encounters with the women in question, and he has reportedly admitted it. But this was consensual. The only disputed element is whether or not he used protection under Swedish law. It is all a murky area, having become so entangled with the WikiLeaks affair. Assange contends that he is being framed to shut him up.

The question then is: Are the Swedish authorities doing the US’ dirty work? There are no easy answers to this. But in view of the fortuitous nature of the two (rape charges, and the WikiLeaks), the suspicion is likely to persist.

At the same time, the US has been busy pressuring internet servers to deny WikiLeaks its links. Some of the prominent ones have already done it. The US is also examining all its legal books to nab him on spying, treason, terrorism and whatever else they can throw at him.

Why are the US and its partners so exercised over something they always claim to favor and espouse all over the world? Which is: transparency and freedom to disseminate information. When WikiLeaks decided to exercise this right, all hell broke loose led by the country (USA) in the forefront of spreading democracy.

The US response has been three-fold. First, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, blasted the disclosure and dissemination of US cables not only for the damage it is doing to the United States but for the world too. She described it as an “attack on the international community.”

At the second level, the US Attorney General is examining US laws to throw the book at Julian Assange and his WikiLealks organization to snuff them out for all times--- a Herculean and probably impossible talk in today’s internet world, even in the country of its origin. Third, and the most sober response has come from the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.

He disagreed with those who described “the impact of these releases on our foreign policy…as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on.” In his view, “those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought.”

He said that the US’ relations with rest of the world were not based on whether it was good at keeping secrets. Elaborating, he said, “Some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us.” And, he maintained, “We are still essentially… the indispensable nation.”

Gates didn’t deny that the dumping of such information was embarrassing and awkward. But, in his view, its consequences for US foreign policy will be “fairly modest.”

Why then is the US establishment generally so “overwrought”, to use Gates words in another context? Or is this a case of good cop and bad cop routine within the US establishment, with Gates trying to underplay the damage? Whatever it is, Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks have exposed the netherworld of diplomatic interaction where politics and perceived national interests trump everything else.

In the meantime all the governments in the world, that have featured in the leaked cables, are trying to deal with it by denying their unsavory contents or pretending to ignore them. Not surprisingly then, the Pakistani Government too has denied and dismissed the contents of the cables relating to its nuclear policy and the risks from it, as well as the perceived involvement of ISI with the Taliban.

Here in Australia, the former prime minister (now foreign minister), Kevin Rudd, has come out as a “control freak” full of self-importance, and hence lacking in diplomatic skills. Rudd is trying to deal with it by the usual bravado of not caring for it. At the same time, Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, slammed her countryman for the illegal act of dumping all those cables, without any reference to the law(s) Assange was breaching. Again, this is not unusual because Australia is prone to follow the United States unthinkingly.

Julian Assange might have to pay a heavy personal price for his audacity (President Barack Obama’s famous word), but he has let the proverbial cat among the pigeons to unfold the high drama of international diplomacy.