I can’t really not discuss Assange. There is a good rule amongst bloggers: don’t follow the MSM road map. The nonsense and lies of crooks are not a useful path to follow. However, Assange has finally been dragged out of the embassy, and this is genuinely noteworthy.
This is the world or arbitrary diktat, the favourite diktat of authoritarians through history. Think of the SES Exec, in some public sector somewhere, making some decision for obscure reasons, and everyone plays along, because seniority. At this lowly level, such Dilbert-esque scenarios are usually harmless, depending on the level of narcissism in the SES Exec (usually not low). Extend this model of leadership to government levels, however, and harm is inevitable. The decisions they actively seek to make – they aren’t jurors – have consequences, sometimes far-reaching. And these burearopols, of whom PM May is the perfect example, are almost always unfit for any leadership positions whatsoever.
So, Assange is dragged from an embassy, after having his status revoked by Ecuadorian president Lenin Moreno. Some unproven mumblings about Assange’s behaviour in the embassy, which I needn’t tarry with. Further accusations of ‘repeated violations’ of conditions, which are unproven, and likely smears. More serious are the accusations, from WikiLeaks, that Assange was being spied on by Ecuador. And of course, they cut his internet access, a nasty little trick, justified by more accusations of meddling in local politics, again unproven. But the truth is clear: the Lenin Moreno government caved to US pressure and have thrown Assange under the bus. The levels of pressure, we may only speculate at, but the word relentless springs to mind.
For my part, I am intrigued by Prime Minister May’s role, and the role of the Australian Government. Here, it gets murky. In the world of mainstream history, which I studied for 2 years or so, the security services scarcely exist; they are either a minor footnote, or a specialized subject, like branches of military history. And so it is in modern day politics. Behind expensive web-sites, and carefully crafted PR, the UK and Australian security services operate in much the usual manner they have always done. Which is to say, in almost total secrecy; in tight, strictly controlled bodies which you are I have scarcely heard of. PM May has meetings with COBRA, or PANTHER, or JOINING or whatever name they decide to call it. Presumably she hears advice from the Lords of Spook, who may or may not be lying to her. All of this is in the darkest secrecy, which may be illuminated in 10, 20, 50 years’ time, or – as in the case of Dunblane – 100, and perhaps never. And then she makes a decision.
Is May then the ultimate decider of Assange’s fate? Moreno can revoke a licence. The extradition order is presumably years old, and activated automatically, unless specifically cancelled. The new AG can pressurize the UK, currently in some disgrace for its spying on POTUS. But, with a due nod to the ultimately unknowable secrecy behind the decision, one must surmise that Prime Minister May herself gave royal assent, with suitable layers of removal, and wringing of hands. For who else could?
So, we have the leader of Ecuador, and the leader of the UK deciding a man’s fate. The final push may have come from the new AG – or some military tribunal advising the AG – but this is all terribly reminiscent of the Iraq fiasco where nobody really had a clue how it came about, a mysterious ‘consensus’ carried the day, and where nobody really took the slightest responsibility, but were quick to accuse everyone else of moral failings.
Which leads us to the Australian Government, similarly in some disgrace for election interference. Once, several years ago, Kevin Rudd made some noises about providing Assange with consular support; fairly low-level support, the very least that could be expected. Otherwise, I fail to recall a single-instance where political leader of Australia even did the bare minimum to protect a high-profile Australian citizen. There will be some, and if the reader wishes to post examples, I should be grateful. But again, a mysterious consensus prevails. The feminist wing – cross-party - want him sent to Sweden, on non-existent rape charges. Successive PM’s have barely said a word in public, though I can only surmise what has occurred in private. Today, Scott Morrison and Bill were forced to comment. And their comments are minor treasures:
“Asked if Australia would oppose the US extradition bid, he [ScoMo] told the ABC: "When Australians travel overseas and find themselves in difficulty with the law, they face the judicial systems of those countries.
"It doesn't matter what crime they are alleged to have committed," Mr Morrison told ABC television on Friday.”
“Opposition Leader Bill Shorten would not comment when asked if Labor would try to block the extradition.
"He should receive consular assistance and other than that I don't know the facts and he will be represented in court," he told the ABC.”
Scott Morrison as usual takes an age to say nothing. And Bill’s comment appears slightly uncomfortable, as he appears singularly unsure how to virtue signal on an actual issue, rather than electioneering nonsense; a weakness worth noting, given he is soon to be Prime Minister. I gave Rudd some credit for the offer of consular assistance, so I must do the same for BIll. However, both current leaders have clearly washed their hands of the issue, with added dissembling regarding being ignorant of the issue at hand. They are well-briefed on many topics. They understand the issue at hand.
Assange of course was banged up for 12 months, within hours, the same alacrity with which Tommy Robinson was ‘dealt with’. The outstanding extradition order springs into play, and he will be flown to the US, after a suitable softening up period. And here we may note sadly that Assange will take little pleasure in being proven correct. When fighting rape allegations, he and his lawyers insisted he would be extradited to the US, and for this was mocked by the chattering classes as being dishonest, somehow cowardly. Well, it would be cowardly if these same people refuse to apologise. They will, of course, refuse to apologize.