by
James Cogan
On
September 21, the Guardian newspaper published claims, based on
unnamed sources, that Ecuador, Russia and WikiLeaks had conspired to
smuggle Julian Assange out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London and
transport him to “another country”—most likely Russia.
According
to the article, the plan was set for Christmas Eve 2017. Ecuador had
granted Assange “diplomatic” status to represent its government
in Russia. He was to be picked up by consular vehicles. However, the
supposed plot was abandoned as “too risky,” because British
authorities outright rejected any recognition of diplomatic status
for Assange and vowed to arrest him as soon as he set foot outside
the embassy.
The
claims were immediately rejected as false by Russian officials and
former British whistleblower and WikiLeaks’ supporter Craig Murray.
A
representative of the Russian embassy stated in a letter to the
Guardian that the article had “nothing to do with reality.”
The letter declared that it was “puzzled by the sensationalist
attitude of the authors.”
Craig
Murray publicly stated that he had been involved in earlier talks
with Ecuadorian consul Fidel Narvaez over possible “future
destinations” for Assange. Russia, he insisted, was
specifically ruled out as “undesirable.”
Assange
was granted Ecuadorian citizenship in early December 2017 as part of
considerations as to whether holding that status could assist in
getting him out of the embassy. British authorities left no doubt
that it would not.
On March
28, 2018, under intense pressure from Washington and London, the
Ecuadorian embassy cut off Assange’s ability to communicate with
the outside world or even receive personal visitors, in a vindictive
effort to force him to leave the building.
Murray
linked the Guardian’s allegations directly to the Mueller
investigation in the United States. The investigation appears to be
trying to construct a case that WikiLeaks and Assange “conspired”
with Russian intelligence during the 2016 presidential election to
hack the Democratic National Committee and publish emails that
impacted on the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
The
authors of the Guardian article are Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Dan
Collyns and Luke Harding. For more than seven years, Harding, in
particular, has used the pages of the newspaper to seek to discredit
Julian Assange and undermine support for WikiLeaks.
The
Guardian article alleges: “The involvement of Russian officials
in hatching what was described as the ‘basic’ plan raises new
questions about Assange’s ties to the Kremlin. The WikiLeaks editor
is a key figure in the ongoing US criminal investigation into
Russia’s attempts to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential
election.”
Assange
cannot speak for himself to answer such assertions, as Ecuador has
denied him his right to communicate for close to six months.
Craig
Murray, however, wrote: “It is very serious indeed when a
newspaper like the Guardian prints a tissue of deliberate lies in
order to spread fake news on behalf of the security services. I
cannot find words eloquent enough to express the depth of my contempt
for Harding and Katharine Viner [Guardian editor-in-chief], who have
betrayed completely the values of journalism.”
“The
aim of the piece is evidently to add a further layer to the fake news
of WikiLeaks’ (non-existent) relationship to Russia as part of the
‘Hillary didn’t really lose’ narrative. I am, frankly, rather
shocked.”
The sole
objective of the efforts to associate WikiLeaks with Russia and the
Trump campaign is to legitimise the unsubstantiated accusations of
“Russian meddling” by the Democratic Party and US intelligence
agencies. The allegations have no credibility.
The DNC
emails were published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016. They exposed
that the Clinton camp had sought to undermine the campaign of Bernie
Sanders in the primary elections. As a result, top DNC officials were
forced to resign in disgrace over their attempt to manipulate the
outcome. Later, in October 2016, WikiLeaks also published emails
leaked from Clinton campaign director John Podesta, which shed
further light on the right-wing, militarist character of her policies
and campaign.
WikiLeaks
has flatly denied that it obtained the DNC and Podesta leaks from
purported “Russian” sources. Craig Murray has publicly stated
that he knows the emails came from “disgruntled” employees within
the DNC who were disgusted by the anti-democratic attempt to
undermine Sanders and benefit Clinton.
The
claim that Assange coordinated with Roger Stone, a figure who by that
time was only loosely associated with the Trump campaign, is even
more absurd. Stone did not even attempt to establish contact with
WikiLeaks until after the publication of the DNC leaks and it was
already in possession of the Podesta emails. Apart from a few
business-like exchanges, there is no record of any collaboration
between Stone and WikiLeaks.
The
effort to paint Assange as a Russian tool is nevertheless relentless.
On September 18, Associated Press published a letter by Assange dated
November 30, 2010, authorising an individual, Israel Shamir, to act
on his behalf in seeking to get a visa to go to Russia. AP asserts
that the letter was an “early hint of Assange’s budding
relationship with Moscow” which “would become increasingly
salient before the 2016 presidential election.”
In fact,
the letter serves only to underscore the immense peril that faced
Assange in late 2010. Politicians and media figures in the US were
publicly calling for him to be murdered over WikiLeaks’ publication
of information exposing American war crimes and diplomatic intrigues.
A Swedish prosecutor was pursuing manufactured allegations that he
had possibly committed sexual assault. The government of Australia,
where Assange is a citizen, was refusing to provide him with any
assistance.
For
Assange to consider leaving Britain for Russia, or any another
country that was less likely to collaborate with a
politically-motivated extradition request, was entirely rational. As
it was, Sweden blocked that possibility by successfully issuing an
Interpol Red Alert for Assange’s arrest on the same day, November
30, 2010.
Within
days, Assange had handed himself in to British police, beginning the
protracted 18-month legal battle against extradition to Sweden from
where he could have been rapidly dispatched to the US to face
espionage charges. The legal campaign culminated with his request for
political asylum in the small Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012.
Speaking
last week at the World Ethical Data Forum, Assange’s legal
representative Jennifer Robinson stated: “We have used every
legal avenue available to us, in the UK and at the UN, to challenge
this situation. This is and has always been about the risk of US
extradition. This case could be resolved tomorrow if the UK would
give this assurance.”
Instead,
all indications suggest the British, Australian and Ecuadorian
governments are collaborating to have Assange indicted and extradited
to the US to appear as part of the Mueller investigation.
Source:
Comments
Post a Comment