On the one hand, the request is wholly reasonable,
given the reality of the situation and, clearly, Assange has more than earned
full support from any person of conscience around the world. There is no doubt in
my mind that President Correa, privately, would do anything to help Assange. I
don't doubt that many government officials in most countries would - secretly -
wish to also do the same, if only they had the guts.
But on the other hand, with Obama regime's
uncompromising and consistently anti-constitutional stance, Correa must realize
that should he grant this one heroic and so unjustly smeared man his request,
his entire nation would be exposed to immediate hardships, since
Obama would, surely, act in swift and unjust retaliation.
For a country as ostracized (by the US government)
as Ecuador, it's damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.
So what would you do if you were Correa?
I think the solution is actually quite
1) Build a coalition of friendly heads of state and
government officials. Not merely in South America but all around the world. Get
them to express solidarity - nothing more - with the humane, lawful and principled position
that Ecuador's acceptance of Assange's justifiable request would represent. I'm
quite certain that mere support of "justice", "fairness" and "freedom of
information" would be embraced by most independently-minded leaders around the
world, whether they'd dare to publicly admit it or not. And not all of that support would come from "rogue" or "third world"
2) Immediately address the United Nations in an
emergency session. Cite the justness of Assange's case, the unfairness of his
persecution (arrest without charge by Sweden, supported by Britain), the
underhandedness of Obama's anti-constitutional stance (suppression of free
speech and journalistic integrity) and cite the support of Ecuador's principled
position from all these other heads of state and government officials around the
world. Then announce that Ecuador will take Assange in, given that it can be
arranged to safely deliver him within its borders. End the UN appeal by
condemning the immorality of the principle under which the US, Britain and Sweden seek retribution on Assange and explain how this has forced this crisis to arise; then remind the world of the enlightened goals of the US constitution as
well as Obama's own pre-election support for the rule of law and constitutional
3) Remind the world that the US enforces foreign
nation's laws with an almost blind zeal (under the Lacey Act, one of
hundreds of ridiculous examples could be the Schoenwetter case where the
defendant was sentenced to 8 years (!) in a US prison - under Honduras law -
which states that fish has to be packed in plastic instead of boxes...);
and state that Ecuador wishes its laws to be enforced by the US as well -
fairness to citizens who haven't been charged, yet are being arrested;
citizens who wish to cooperate yet are refused cooperation by those who want to
question them; citizens who wish to know their position regarding a possible
secret indictment, yet are refused the truth - in this case by the US
4) Put the strongest possible international focus
on this in all possible media (most won't cooperate, but some will), and put
Obama to shame if he refuses to acknowledge it. And then grant the asylum,
requesting international cooperation, starting with Britain to whom an appeal
should be made not to enforce the illegal arrest warrant. Appeal to fairness,
justice and the US Constitution.
What would this achieve?
Would it get Assange safely to Ecuador? Would it
strengthen or weaken Ecuador's international reputation? Would it help or harm
its people? Would it enrage the US and Britain? Would it shame Sweden? Would it
expose the trumped-up case against Assange and the people who engineered it?
Would it bring justice? Would it make the world a better place?
Given that at least a few dozen countries,
large and small, would most certainly get behind such a broad move, and given that
"enough" media outlets would publicize the story (including the alternative
media on the internet), Obama would have only two options: either stick to his
guns and clearly and obviously - just weeks before his re-election campaign -
reinforce his rapidly declining image as an immoral man. Or, he could
magnanimously agree that Ecuador has a point and come clean with his intentions
vis a vis Assange, bringing it to light - and thus giving Assange a fair chance
before the law.
Would Assange wind up in Ecuador? A free man
perhaps? Doubtful, in the short run. But his legal position would be greatly
bolstered and his chances of an ultimate victory greatly enhanced. And our
benefit - the citizens of the world - would be immense.
Would Ecuador benefit from this kind of action? In the eyes of all
thinking and feeling people - yes. But economically and politically, it would be
affected by the wrath of the US regime with too much to lose if freedom and
justice had its way.
Would it shame Sweden, Britain and the US? They've
already been shamed. Problem is, they don't care. But the real question is - would they take the chance to repair the damage they did by sticking to their
current position? My answer is, sadly, no. They'll carry on regardless confident that if
their citizens pay the price for this scandalous treachery, it won't be on
Would the world be a better place? Yes. Regardless
of the outcome, a moral position taken by a head of state can only have positive
repercussions further down the road.
Paul Sedkowski, co-founder of Meer Music International and co-creator of Fame Games, has spent most of his life in music. He's worked with platinum-selling managers, producers, artists and songwriters. From long-term partnerships with John Coletta (more...