In 1773, the Massachusetts colonists threw 342 trunks full of Chinese tea into Boston Harbor in an act of rebellion against the taxes imposed on them by the metropolis without granting them any representation in return; In 2024 there are Britons who think that London’s political, economic and judicial submission to Washington is so great, and the imbalance in relations so profound, that in protest they would have to throw a shipment of popcorn into the Thames.
There are many examples of the unilaterality of the “special relationship” between the United States and Great Britain, such as Blair’s support for the Iraq war despite the massively contrary opinion of the population. Or, in the field of law, the unequal extradition treaty that Washington invokes to request the surrender of Australian journalist Julian Assange.
The founder of Wikileaks has gained a little time in his attempt to avoid entering a North American prison with no release date, but a sword of Damocles continues to hang over his head. What the judges did yesterday was to demand three guarantees from the Biden Administration for extradition: that the death penalty would not be imposed, that he would not be discriminated against in the trial due to his Australian nationality, and that he could invoke the First Amendment in his defense. to the constitution, which establishes freedom of expression. And to do this, Washington has three weeks.
It is not that extradition will be denied if those conditions are breached. What would happen is that there would be another hearing on May 10 to decide if Assange can appeal the decision to send him handcuffed and with a one-way ticket (but not a return ticket) to a United States prison, already taken by the Supreme Court and signed. by the then Home Secretary, Priti Patel. And if so, the eventual appeal could be accepted or rejected. Assange is about to serve five years in prison in the Belmarsh maximum security prison (to which must be added the seven he spent without leaving the Ecuadorian embassy), and from his cell there is still not a trace of light. He has to continue waiting and suffering (physically and mentally).
What the British judges have done, in a 66-page resolution, is pass the buck to the United States government and tell Biden that, in exchange for the guarantees he asks for, Assange would be his. The Australian journalist will put an X on the calendar for each of the days until April 16, the deadline available to Washington to report that he will comply with the conditions or remain silent.
In recent days it has been rumored (the original information was given by the Wall Street Journal) that Biden would be willing to eliminate the treason charges against Assange and reduce them in a very substantial way, giving him the opportunity to simply plead guilty to a crime related to the hacking of official documents that would not require a punishment of deprivation of liberty. But the lawyers of the founder of Wikilieaks claim to have not received any indication in that regard.
The magistrates, in their extensive resolution, accepted the American argument that the case against Assange is not “political”, which is bad news for the investigative journalist, by leaving the door wide open to his possible extradition if London’s demands on the death penalty, non-discrimination on the basis of nationality and respect for freedom of expression are met. Stella Morris, his wife and member of his legal team, declared herself “beyond astonished by such a decision,” which she described as incomprehensible.
“There is no doubt that Julian Assange is a political prisoner,” Morris said after the resolution. The judges have requested political intervention from the United States government, as if telling it that if they meet certain conditions everything will be fine. But it is retribution, a clear signal that anyone who opposes the interests that promote wars will be persecuted and imprisoned, and even attempted murder. “All charges should be dropped.”
Assange’s lawyers emphasize that the 2003 bilateral extradition treaty, on the basis of which the United States claims Assange, is as unbalanced as the bilateral relationship itself. It has always been the subject of controversy, because it allows the United States to request the surrender of British citizens or other nationalities for actions that may be a crime before American justice, even if they were carried out in British territory, when the reverse is not the case. . The level of proof required is also very different. It is enough for Washington to allege reasonable suspicion, while London must present evidence that a crime has been committed.
If at any time the “special relationship” between the two countries was balanced, it has not been for a long time. The United Kingdom does everything it can to please its transatlantic cousins ??in exchange for receiving pats on the back and for the CIA to share crumbs of intelligence with MI6, and both organizations intend to go hand in hand on security and counterterrorism issues, although in reality the rivalry between the agencies is brutal. But in the opposite direction the traffic does not flow in the same way. Ronald Reagan initially resisted siding with Thatcher and against Argentina in the Falklands War (although he later did), and now Biden is punishing London for Brexit, constantly dragging his feet on the beneficial trade deal that Reagan dreamed of. conservative government.
Washington wants Assange. If London does not give it to them, it will be a change of direction, a fist on the table and an act of rebellion like that of the North American colonists with the East India Company’s tea in the port of Boston.
