Julian “The apostate”-Immature decisions and repercussions

 

 

 

The recent announcement from the state of Equador and from its president Raphael Correa, that it grants Julian Assange political asylum, has done nothing but inserted the relatively calmer region of South America into the world’s Geopolitical turmoil. But first let’s get the facts strait. Espionage means Espionage and has nothing to do with alleged terms such as “free speech” along with the involvement of “Democracy”. Free speech is one thing and of course it is the cornerstone of a Democratic society. It is one thing to criticize politicians, financial structures, even military “blunders” or worse illegal involvements of States into wars like the one in Iraq in 2003 or now in Syria for example, and another to publicize TOP SECRET wires from embassies around the world. We presume that everyone should know the difference between the two states of facts, but obviously we are wrong. It is indeed a fact that the world is in turmoil, because the majority of the politicians who handle crises are incompetent and puppets of a “behind the scenes” elite of policy makers, bankers included. But how does whistleblowing make the situation any better? The whole problem lies within the context of states being dismantled and run by rogue nuclei, so is further dismantle going to fix the problem somehow? Obviously it will not! Protesters, who have taken the streets protest against the plunge of their life quality and the asymmetries of modern economies, which have torn apart the once mighty middle class. In this whole context, everyone is responsible, thus such “rogue actions” of publicizing Top Secret documents, instead of being vilified are perceived as heroic actions. The word “Democracy” comes from two ancient Greek words, namely Demos (The people) and Cratos (the state). The term which formed the ideal socio-political system became the substrate of the renowned SPQR (Senatus Populus Que Romanus, the Senate for the people of Rome) and the root recipe of success for modern Western societies. It is hard to draw the line, though, between Democracy and anarchy. It is hard for people to perceive that their freedom ends, when the freedom of the one standing beside them begins. The failure to apprehend this pivotal further explanation of the term Democracy, can deteriorate the political system and plunge it into anarchy, a situation, some scholars actually consider it “favorable”, where the states have little if any influence in the regulation of societies. The subsequent actions that can lead to the restoration of Democracy, mark the other pole, which is no other than autocracy, dictatorship and centralization of powers.

 What does the above analysis have to do with Julian Assange? It has everything to do with him. During the years that states enjoyed the respect of the people, such actions did not go unpunished, or even better a lone wolf would not expect himself to get away with it, by mixing interstate affairs, thus engaging more players into this vicious circle. Yes the US has made many mistakes, yes in many times it has behaved inappropriately not respecting other nations’ sovereignty, taking decisions unilaterally in the absence of a state competitor (or a coalition of state competitors) strong enough to veto in practice its actions. Yet the above facts lie light years away from justifying espionage, snitches and thugs whose motives, end of the day, are highly questionable, despite the “heroic mantle” or that of “martyrdom”, which they have worn. In the context of free speech, real journalists, patriots in most cases, have dedicated their lives in pursuing ways to reinstate international law in the area of International Affairs, but they have acted legally pursuing those Democratic standards they wish to reinstate.

Julian Assange had no right to further expose the status of the US, through the publication of footage, which show “war crimes” and “atrocities” being carried out. In this open debate we would like to ask those activists who support Mr Assange, when and in which case throughout the course of history are they aware of wars and conflicts in generals wherein “soldiers fought like gentlemen”. This is an honest question, since we are not aware of any such cases. War is a “brutal business”, if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be considered as the last resort and the diplomats would be jobless. But from a couch or from a safe haven, Western societies have established for their citizens, one cannot perceive the real brutality of war, wherein a person becomes a beast, a savage barbarian, whose only purpose is to live and return home in one piece both physically and mentally. The extent to which the war a soldier is fighting, is legal or not, is not his/her business and regardless of its legality and ethics, the people that foster true societal values, should support the soldiers dying in the battlefield, or even worse getting mutilated for the rest of their lives, instead of backing up spies in the name of a perverted aspect of “Free speech”, which threatens even more those societal values that we all strive to shield.

The Geopolitical repercussions of this “fairytale gone bad” will hit the world severely in a time when the call for prudence is louder than the call for immaturity. The whole Latin America is involved in it, with Argentina pursuing its revisionist dreams of taking another shot at the Falklands. Moreover, from the other side of the table, the US has been actively involved for many years in the Latin America affairs, but Latin America has enjoyed a relatively quiet period for the last years (the case of Mexico is a different case and it lies outside the context of this specific debate). Assange’s case may alter the activity in this region regardless of whether the British Police will interfere or not in his safe passage. At the end of the day, we should all think whether a person alone deserves so much “attention”, especially in those troubled times. If we conclude that indeed he does, then we first give the right to “soldiers of fortune” to chew up once again their usual pretext and install a real authoritarian regime, one of a global scale, which we have yet to experience. And then, there will be no difference between “Free speech” cases, as there will be no such thing as “Free Speech”

 

 

Alexandros Boufesis

Geopolitical analyst, author

Director of Focus Dynamics Research Center

Advertisements
Leave a comment

1 Comment

  1. Anonymous

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: