Julian Assange still in prison: It’s a sad reflection of the Australian government’s inadequate and failed diplomacy

Assange’s prolonged detention reflects poorly on the commitment of Australian authorities to protect their citizens and uphold the principles of justice.

Julian Assange’s ongoing incarceration in Belmarsh prison and the inadequate efforts by the Australian government to secure his release highlight a deeply troubling and concerning issue. Stella Assange’s recent impassioned plea that the case has taken “an enormous toll on Julian, and now is a right moment for the Biden administration to drop the case”, highlights the gravity of the situation, calling for an immediate end to what she describes as a shameful attack on journalism, the press, and the public. For over five years, Assange has been under immense pressure, confined within the high-security walls of Belmarsh prison, while his case continues to languish in legal limbo, with no indication for when it will ever be resolved. The call for the Biden administration to abandon the case resonates with a sense of urgency and justice, as the prolonged ordeal is taking a significant toll on Assange’s mental and physical wellbeing.

The recent decision by the London High Court granting Assange the right to appeal his extradition to the United States represents a minor yet crucial legal victory, and this right to appeal hinges on challenging the assurances provided by the United States regarding the protection of freedom of speech, the avoidance of prejudice due to nationality, and the removal of the death penalty as an outcome of any legal proceedings. These assurances are fraught with complexities, particularly given the contentious nature of the death penalty in the U.S. legal system, which permits its federal application under certain circumstances, including for non-citizens. The intricacies of federal law and the broader implications of Assange’s case raise significant concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the legal proceedings he faces.

The Australian government’s role in this protracted saga remains ambiguous and disheartening. A look at the recent treatment of David McBride – whose trial the Attorney–General Mark Dreyfus could have halted but chose not to – casts doubt on the Australian government’s commitment to protecting its citizens from international or domestic legal overreach, and the limited and seemingly ineffective efforts to secure Assange’s release suggests a lack of political will or diplomatic prowess. The small legal step of being able to appeal extradition, while better than no recourse at all, pales in comparison to the broader need for the United States to entirely drop the charges against Assange. This outcome would represent a significant step toward justice and the protection of journalistic freedom.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, particularly concerning freedom of speech, further complicates Assange’s predicament. The principle of freedom of speech is foundational to the American legal system, intended to safeguard the right to criticise the government without fear of undue repercussions. Assange’s actions, primarily facilitating the publication of documents in the public interest that were critical of the U.S. government actions in Iraq, fall within the purview of this fundamental right. The charges against him, and the resulting extradition battle, reflect a troubling level of insecurity within the U.S. system and the prolonged pursuit of Assange contradicts the ethos of a liberal republic, which should ideally uphold and protect freedom of speech rather than stifling it.

The narrative surrounding Assange has shifted over the years, with initial criticisms of his personal conduct giving way to a broader recognition of his role as a symbol of the fight for free speech. The vilification he faced early on has been overshadowed by the more significant implications of his prosecution. In many ways, Assange has become a martyr for a cause that strikes at the heart of democratic principles and the United States’ continued efforts to extradite and prosecute him only serve to reinforce this perception, undermining the very values the country purports to defend. The Australian government’s failure to assertively intervene exacerbates this injustice, leaving Assange’s fate precariously balanced on the edge of an international political and legal quagmire.

Has the Australian government done enough to release Assange?

The incarceration of Assange in Belmarsh prison, despite the lack of concrete charges against him, casts a long shadow over the Australian government’s purported efforts to secure his release. Official statements from both Coalition and Labor governments over the years assert that they have done all they can, yet the reality of Assange’s continued detention suggests otherwise. Assange has been held in London for over five years, largely due to his involvement with WikiLeaks and the release of a 2010 video depicting a US airstrike on civilians in Baghdad. Chelsea Manning, the American whistleblower who initially leaked the footage, was imprisoned for seven years before receiving a pardon from President Barack Obama in 2017. The discrepancy in treatment, where the provider of the original U.S. secrets has been free for seven years, while the publisher of the secrets remains in jail and untried, raises questions about the actual crimes attributed to Assange, which remain allegations at this stage, rather than proven charges.

The legal and political landscape surrounding Assange’s case is rife with inconsistencies and missed opportunities. Under U.S. federal prosecution principles, and with directives from the President, the U.S. Attorney–General Merrick Garland has the power to drop the charges. Stella Assange’s appeal highlights this potential path to resolution, yet no such action has been taken. This inertia points to a glaring lack of pressure from the Australian government, which ostensibly should have significant leverage over its ally. The ANZUS Treaty, the Quad relationship, Pine Gap, and the controversial AUKUS agreement all signify strong ties between Australia and the United States. Yet, despite these strategic and diplomatic connections, Australia’s government appears reluctant to engage in the necessary tough negotiations with the U.S. to secure Assange’s release.

This reluctance is further magnified by the Australian government’s treatment of other whistleblowers, notably David McBride, whose case was marked by double speak and a lack of decisive action from Australian authorities, mirroring the broader pattern of a lack of support for whistleblowers. While Australia has successfully negotiated the release of its citizens from Chinese jails, for example, it seems impotent in the face of securing Assange’s freedom from Belmarsh prison and the potential legal peril he faces in the U.S. This disparity is particularly stark given that the countries involved—Britain and the United States—are among Australia’s closest allies.

The hope that the U.S. court system might eventually see reason and deliver justice to Assange is tempered by a prevailing skepticism about its current reliability and impartiality. The broader implications of this case extend beyond Assange himself, striking at the core principles of freedom of speech and the protection of journalistic endeavours and it serves as a sobering reminder of the fragile state of these freedoms in an era increasingly dominated by security concerns and governmental overreach.

The Australian government’s failure to secure the release of Julian Assange from Belmarsh prison is a troubling testament to its inadequate diplomatic efforts and the broader systemic issues at play. Assange’s prolonged detention, couples with what appears to be concocted charges of espionage, reflects poorly on the efficacy and commitment of Australian authorities to protect their citizens and uphold the principles of justice and free speech. The need for decisive action and genuine political will is more pressing than ever, not just for Assange’s sake, but for the integrity of democratic values worldwide.