This Wikileaks footage shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Elden and her driver Saeed Chmagh being shot at by the Apache. The attack occurred in a public square in Baghdad and they were assumed to be militants. After the initial shooting, a minivan full of adults and children drove into the square and were fired upon as well. The US military listed the adults as militants and claimed they did not know how the deaths occurred.
For just one man, Julian Assange has certainly managed to discombobulate and disrupt a large swathe of the geopolitical system. Not only is Sweden gunning for Assange, but there is little doubt that Britain and the U.S. will now stop at nothing to get their hands on the controversial founder of whistle-blowing outfit WikiLeaks. Having apparently concluded that he could no longer count on the support of his native Australia, which is beholden to Washington, Assange has now thrown in his lot with the tiny South American nation of Ecuador. Could this John Le Carré story of diplomatic intrigue get any stranger?
Nationalism is a schizophrenic project. It uses strategic alibis to switch from one form to another. The determining factors, always, are of political, diplomatic and of course, military convenience. The latest example in this schizophrenic play comes from Britain; more precisely, from two recent events in London. The first is the recently held closing ceremony of London’s Olympic games. One of its memorable highlights was John Lennon’s hair-raising song ‘Imagine’, rendered by the Liverpool Philharmonic Youth Choir Singing Choir, alongside the Liverpool Signing Choir.
A group of young people, dressed in white T-shirts with ‘Imagine’ inscribed on the front, held the audience in their thrall, singing the iconic peace song, its first rendition by Lennon in 1971. A sculpture of Lennon too had also been installed for the occasion.
‘Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do…’
Lyrics from a different world, many would say. But despite the cold cynicism and rank indifference to that world, Lennon’s “Imagine” has managed to hold popular imagination. In 2002, it was named, in a UK poll, the second best single of all times behind Queen’s ‘Boheminan Rhapsody’. Two year later, ‘Imagine’ ranked third on Rolling Stone’s list of the five hundred greatest songs of all times.
Move from that palpable moment at the Olympic ceremony to the events of last week at the Ecuador embassy in London: from the possibility – though elusive – of an opening up of trans-national borders to their narrowing down through strategic and diplomatic manipulations. The David Cameron government has refused allow WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to leave for Ecuador, the country which has offered him asylum. Yes, the path-breaking social media activist is facing serious charges of sexual misconduct, and he has to stand trial. But that issue is separate from the sinister plans of the US to gag him and his website by putting him behind bars, once he is extradited to Sweden. Cameron’s plan is to pack Assange off to Sweden ostensibly to face the former charges. But at the moment, it seems, Sweden is just a stopover to America.
If Lennon was a ‘dreamer’, Cameron is a hardheaded bully. His government has even suggested aggression against the small country of Ecuador. Forget about crossing the boundaries of Britain, Assange can’t even leave the small patch of territory that is the Ecuador embassy.
Here is the paradox of globalization, strategic aggression, and hyper-nationalism, which are, at more than one level, connected with each other, drawing from the same philosophy of predatory selfishness – quite the opposite of Lennon’s musical creed.
Under this regime of free trade and ‘liberal’ ideas, the movement of commodities is simpler than that of human beings. Protecting illiberal powerful regimes like the US which can start wars on the basis of lies and carry out an incredible scale of destruction (what we are seeing in Iraq) is more important than protecting Julian Assange, who has been bringing to light many of the injustices around which US’s hyper nationalism and paranoia is built.
The distinction between things which move and those which don’t, maps onto to what the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman has identified as the tension between the “tourist” and the “vagabond” in globalized society. Tourists, he says, are welcome migrants – who move but never stay, who are economically and politically desired because they pose no threat to boundaries. By contrast vagabonds “are the caricature which reveals the ugliness hidden underneath the beauty of make-up. Their presence is irksome and infuriating: there is no evident use they may be put to; for all one knows, they may be disposed of to no one’s – not even their own -loss or regret.” But, he adds, the vagabonds “are the dark background against which the sun of the tourist shines so brightly that the spots are hardly seen.” Julian Assange, seen in this light, might be the vagabond our time needs.
It now seems fair to say that the high-stakes drama unfolding in London and the Ecuadoran Embassy has taken on wider political implications. Indeed, the Julian Assange imbroglio highlights the escalating tug of war which has been playing out between the United States and South America for some time. Rafael Correa, Ecuador’s combative leftist/populist president, has felt encircled and pressured by Washington and may have felt that he had nothing to lose by offering diplomatic asylum to Assange.
By over-reacting and daring to suggest that it might even raid the Ecuadoran Embassy, which would constitute truly rogue-like behavior, the Cameron government has only managed to harden the resolve of Correa and his allies in South America, who may surmise that Washington was probably egging on the UK all along. For now, Correa seems to be winning the battle of public relations, yet it’s far from clear that the Ecuadoran leader’s high stakes gamble will pay off in the long run. Indeed, if anything the Assange matter will further strain Ecuador’s relations with Washington and Correa could wind up paying a steep political price for challenging “the Empire.”
Ratcheting up the Anti-Imperialist Rhetoric
Over the past few days, South America seems to have hardened its position on the Assange affair and this has certainly benefited Correa. There’s no love lost between Washington and ALBA, Latin America’s populist left bloc led by Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, and, true to form, the organization lost no time in making hay out of the WikiLeaks imbroglio. “We hope that the British government respects not only international law but the right to political asylum that Assange has received,” remarked Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro.
In an anti-imperialist twist, Maduro added for good measure that his government stood firmly against “the arrogance and predominance that the British government has had in the region [Latin America], directly threatening a democratic and sovereign government and announcing the possible violation of international law.” Specifically, the ALBA bloc haswarned of the “irreversible” consequences to political, economic and even cultural relations were the British to follow through on their stated threats.
In yet another dig at the old British Empire, ALBA nations declared that Cameron’s “attitude is another belligerent stance in addition to the treatment of the UK government on the case of the Falkland Islands and shows their lack of concern of relations with Latin America and the Caribbean.” Bolivian President Evo Morales, another ALBA ally, also weighed in with his own anti-imperialist rhetoric, declaring that “the era of pillage and invasion has ended,” and it was now time to “repair historic injustices.” Europe, Morales added, owed a debt to Latin America because in colonial times “they took away our natural resources.”
Bringing in the Falklands Equation
Though London might dismiss statements from rabble-rousing Bolivia and Venezuela, the Cameron government might be concerned about the possibility of anti-British sentiment spreading to more politically and economically important nations in the region. According to Maduro, the ALBA bloc is enlisting the diplomatic support of the South American Community of Nations, also known as UNASUR. In an ominous sign for London, Ecuador will convene an “extraordinary” meeting of the group today.
Within this tense milieu, Argentina may see political opportunity. Recently, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has been resuscitating nationalist rhetoric over the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, and the Argentine leader has been very adept at corralling other left-leaning Latin American nations into her corner. Indeed, just this past February Correa himself boycotted the Summit of the Americas, a meeting of regional heads of state from across the hemisphere, in part due to Washington’s refusal to allow a declaration of support for Argentine claims over the Falklands. Slamming the British, Correa called the UK a colonial power and even suggested imposing sanctions on London for failing to negotiate with Argentina over the disputed islands.
It is doubtful whether Argentina itself has any particular regard for WikiLeaks, an organization which, if anything, has caused the Buenos Aires government acute embarrassment. Indeed, as I’ve noted before, the “Cablegate” scandal revealed power couple Néstor and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as mercurial and duplicitous, ready to deal with the U.S. or conversely Venezuela depending on political whimsy. What is clear, however, is that Argentina will do its utmost to get its hands on the Falklands, an island chain where Britain is exploring for lucrative deposits of oil and gas, and therefore the Assange case provides convenient fodder.
An even more important country worth considering is Brazil, which may back Ecuador in its dispute with Britain for the time being though fundamentally the Dilma Rousseff government has no interest in offending powerful nations to the north. Indeed, though former President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva once expressed sympathy for Assange, Brazil may be too invested in preserving its own public image and fulfilling a quixotic quest forworld power status to jeopardize relations with the U.S.
Washington’s Oily Pressure
Meanwhile, even as the South Americans sort out their own agenda and contradictions, Washington has been playing its usual cynical games. When Ecuador pressed the Organization of American States (or OAS) to hold a meeting over the Assange affair, Washington opposed any such move. Ridiculously, the U.S. Envoy to the OAS said any such talks “would be unhelpful and harmful to the OAS’ reputation as an institution.”
The official added for good measure that Washington does not “recognize the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law.” Straining credibility, the State Department played innocent and declared, “We believe this is a bilateral issue between Ecuador and the United Kingdom and that the OAS has no role to play in this matter.”
A small and impoverished nation, Ecuador is particularly vulnerable to economic retaliation from the Colossus to the north. Currently, Washington grants the Andean nation special trade preferences which allow the Correa government to export many goods duty free. However, those preferences are scheduled to come up for renewal by Congress in early 2013. Eric Farnsworth, Vice President of the Council of Americas, a group representing U.S. companies doing business throughout the hemisphere, told Reuters that the Assange affair was not “a move destined to win many new friends in Washington.”
Currently, Ecuador is the sole beneficiary of the Andean Trade Preferences Act. Under the program, the South American nation exports billions of dollars worth of petroleum products to the U.S. every year. Other important exports associated with the act include cut flowers and tropical fruits such as mangoes and pineapple. Recently, as part of its annual review policy, the U.S. Trade Representative announced that all parties interested in filing petitions asking for Ecuador’s trade benefits to be terminated or reduced should do so by September.
According to Reuters, “A number of U.S. business groups have already weighed in with such recommendations.” In a worrying development for Correa, the groups are basing their complaints upon Chevron’s long-standing battle with Ecuador over environmental despoliation in the Amazon. In 2001 the company purchased Texaco, an oil corporation which is blamed for widespread pollution and damages. Just last year, an Ecuadoran court ruled against Chevron, charging the firm $19 billion to clean up its mess.
Chevron, however, says the ruling is a fraud and Reuters reports that the National Foreign Trade Council, which counts the oil company as a member, is lobbying the Obama White House to cut off Ecuador’s trade benefits, apparently as retaliation. In a rather brazen aside, the president of the trade group told Reuters that the Assange imbroglio “would provide the excuse (to suspend benefits) if the administration is looking for one to do it.”
The Next “Bad Boy” of South America?
It’s anybody’s guess as to how the Ecuadoran public will treat Correa in the event of economic losses. On a certain level, it is difficult to see how the plight of an eccentric Aussie could resonate amongst Ecuador’s indigenous peoples who are probably more focused on daily bread and butter issues than the geopolitical intricacies associated with WikiLeaks. Not surprisingly meanwhile, the local business community has grown increasingly wary of its president’s unpredictable foreign policy and fears that trade with the U.S. and EU could be jeopardized over the Assange imbroglio.
Nevertheless, many Ecuadorans dislike U.S. meddling in their internal affairs and resent Washington’s high-handed attitude. According to the Guardianof London, even those who have been critical of Correa are in favor of Ecuador’s decision to grant asylum to Assange. When the Foreign Affairs Ministry in Quito announced its decision to grant asylum to the WikiLeaks founder, a crowd cheered outside. “The United Kingdom and other developed countries don’t usually allow small countries like Ecuador to challenge their decisions,” one Quito resident told the Guardian, adding that “Ecuador’s decision is a sovereign decision and foreign governments have to respect it.”
If Correa’s intention was to become the next bad boy of South America by courting diplomatic confrontation, then it seems unlikely that this Hugo Chávez protégé will get his wish. Even if Chávez were to vanish from the scene and Correa inherited the populist mantle throughout the wider region, Ecuador is a much smaller and poorer country than Venezuela. Though Ecuador is an oil exporter, the country doesn’t have nearly the amount of financial resources to throw around as Chávez.
The Presidential Stakes
Nevertheless, Correa may derive some domestic political capital from the Assange affair and the president needs all the support he can get. Under Ecuador’s new constitution, Correa will be seeking reelection to a second presidential term in February, 2013. On the surface at least, the maverick politician has little to fear: according to recent opinion polls Correa has a commanding lead over prospective opponents, due largely to the fact that there hasn’t been any clear political challenger.
However, surveys indicate that Guillermo Lasso, the former head of the Bank of Guayaquil, could force a runoff. Reportedly, Lasso was behind a series of plans to destabilize the Correa regime back in 2007 and met with the U.S. Ambassador in Ecuador who expressed interest in joining forces as long the banker and his allies could “offer responsible alternatives” to the Quito government (ironically enough, it was WikiLeaks itself which publicized the meetings, which were detailed within classified U.S. diplomatic cables). Recently, the businessman has been closing the polling gap with Correa, whose populist-style rule has polarized Ecuador.
In addition to counteracting the right, Correa needs to shore up his own leftist base. In recent years, indigenous peoples and others have grown increasingly disenchanted with the president, who has often behaved in a high handed manner when it comes to social protest. In 2009, for example, the authorities moved to shut down an environmental group, Acción Ecológica, which had been critical of oil development. Then, when Indians blocked Amazonian roads in protest over encroaching mining and petroleum exploration, Correa called the demonstrators “infantile” and sent in the police. When two people died in the ensuing violence, the Indians said the Correa government “had blood on its hands.”
Lightning Rod Assange
As if WikiLeaks could cause no more disruption to the powers that be, the Julian Assange affair and the standoff at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London have continued to discombobulate political elites across the globe. To be sure, recent developments have highlighted fractures and divisions between the Global North and the poorer South. Yet, it goes without saying that Latin-American governments, too, are interested in perpetuating themselves in power and are not above whipping up nationalist sentiment if it suits their own political objectives.
With so many imponderables, it’s difficult to say how things play out diplomatically from here. To have taken on both the U.S. and UK governments was indeed a very gutsy decision by firebrand Correa. Will the Ecuadoran’s high-stakes gamble pay off or lead to negative consequences for the firebrand leader? It’s too early to say how much of an impact the Assange affair will have on Ecuador politics, though we will certainly have a better idea by early 2013, when the Andean nation holds its presidential election. For better or worse, the political fates of Correa and Assange may have now become inextricably linked.
For any European, when asked about the freedom of speech, it is European media that is epitome of freedom and they are proud of this fact. And they should be, after all according to World Audit Report 2011, European countries rounded of the top five of Press Freedom rankings and rest of the list as well is mostly held by EU countries. All the nations are bounded to this canon through United Nations. The criteria of the ranking is based on Universal Declaration of Human Rights under article 19, which instructs, that, ìEveryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiersî.How free European media really is? On the world ranking, it is European countries that are dominating the list. But being there and observing the media may show something else to an external observer. According to World Audit Report, the level of press freedom is defined into three ‘broad’ categories, which are, legal environment, political environment and the economic environment. Legal environment is based on the flexibility of laws and regulations and ìgovernment’s inclination to use these laws and legal institutions in order to restrict the media’s ability to operate’.
Political environment, analyses the scale of political control over media, which include independence of state owned as well as private media. It also involves production and distribution process, as well as the favourable environment for journalists to operate in a country. The economic environment is defined by ownership of the media and where its inclination lies. This methodology of World Audit Report may sound very scientific and accurate when judging the level of free flow of information, nevertheless it can easily be criticized.readmorehttp://muslimjournalmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/08/julian-assange-has-certainly-managed-to.html
No comments:
Post a Comment