In the confusion of the Wikileaks affair, we’ve learnt the average US diplomat is markedly undiplomatic in private communication. He or she would also benefit greatly from a remedial course in basic English.
The candour is unsurprising in intra-departmental memos. The lack of clarity of expression is deplorable. Sentences are mangled, nouns are “adverbised”, and usages like “we have demarched Britain” abound.
Much of what we’ve seen so far is trivial. Dagestanis get drunk at weddings. Mehriban Aliyeva, the First Lady of Azerbaijan, “wears dresses that would be considered provocative even in the Western world” and “has difficulty showing facial expressions, after substantial cosmetic surgery”. Qadhafi travels with a voluptuous Ukrainian nurse.
It has also become obvious that the establishment in the world’s most open democracy is deeply committed to the principles of free speech — so long as it is not at the receiving end. The US Government (USG) has gone ballistic, trying to suppress the leaks and to nail Julian Assange’s hide.
After pressure was brought to bear by the USG, Amazon.com kicked Wikileaks off its servers for unspecified violations of Terms of Service. Paypal, Visa and Mastercard have stopped processing Wikileaks transactions. In retaliation, hackers have hit those sites, leading to fascinating battles in cyberspace. In effect, the USG has discovered that it can’t shut down information flow though it could quite conceivably drive Wikileaks into extinction.
A comparison with the Pentagon Papers affair shows how attitudes have hardened over 40 years. In 1971, The New York Times started publishing extracts from a stolen US Department of Defence Study on US-Vietnam relations, (the Pentagon Papers). The Washington Post and several other newspapers also got into the act.
The papers showed that the USG had lied and suppressed information. The USG made a legal attempt to block publication. When that failed, it let go. There was no witch-hunt targeting the media institutions concerned.
In contrast, one mainstream US newspaper published a recent editorial calling for Assange’s assassination. His bail in the UK will reportedly have to be posted in cash due to the reluctance of credit card issuers to provide service.
The fact that he is in custody at all has nothing to do with Wikileaks, at least officially. The charges are about sexual misconduct and that’s a different can of worms. In August, Assange slept with two Swedish women in quick succession while staying with them.
Some of the sex was consensual, some apparently wasn’t. On one occasion with woman A, he refused to use a condom despite her protestations. With woman B, who was asleep at the time, he initiated “un-comdomised” proceedings if one may borrow from the lexicon of US diplomatese. It is, of course, their word against his.
In many jurisdictions, this would be considered bad behaviour even if true, but not criminal. However, Sweden has extremely nuanced laws of sexual harassment. It recognises withdrawal of consent during a sexual act where consent has been previously given.
Assange, therefore, faces four criminal charges of varying seriousness. There was much back and forth in the Swedish legal system with one prosecutor deciding this wasn’t worth bringing to trial, while two others thinking it was.
Given the timing and the zeal with which the case has been pursued, one can’t help thinking that this is just very convenient. Assange would probably have been arrested without bail if he had just shot a traffic light.
Regardless of what the Swedish courts decide, the case has turned into a geopolitical cause celebre and conspiracy theorists will have a field day. It’s a pity because the implications of that Swedish law are interesting in themselves. One good thing about the affair is that both the theory of free speech and the nuances of sexual misconduct will get a public airing.
