Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said he maintains his previous comments opposed to the ongoing persecution of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange.
But when asked on Monday if he had spoken to Joe Biden about the U.S. push to extradite Assange from the UK, Albanese indicated he would address the issue out of public view. The U.S. is trying to prosecute Assange over the release of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as diplomatic cables.
So what is the position of the new Australian government? What options do you have? And what are the next steps in the judicial process?
What has he said in the past about Assange?
Albanese told ABC Radio Northern Tasmania on December 15:
Well, I’ve been saying that for a long time. The fact is that you have the circumstances in which the person who actually leaked the classified information to WikiLeaks is free, is walking, is not imprisoned. But the person who published this information remains in prison in Britain awaiting extradition proceedings being carried out by the United States.
It was a reference to former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who was released in 2017 when Barack Obama commuted his 35-year military prison sentence to one of his latest acts such as the president. Albanese went on to say that Assange “had already paid a high price for publishing this information”:
I do not see the purpose of Mr. Assange’s ongoing persecution. He is also an Australian citizen. And with that comes the obligation of the Australian government to ensure that it receives the right support.
In April, Assange’s father, John Shipton, said the election of a Labor government would be a “great opportunity” to release the co-founder of WikiLeaks. Shipton said he had eaten several lunches with Albanese and had been assured that the then opposition leader would do “everything he could” to free his son.
What did Albanese say on Monday?
Speaking to reporters in Melbourne, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his previously stated position, while suggesting that he would not take a more direct public position.
“I have made it clear what my position is publicly,” he said. “I made it clear last year. I keep my comments that I made then.
“But I also say: there are people who think that if you put things in capital letters on Twitter and put an exclamation mark, that somehow makes it more important. It doesn’t.
“I intend to lead a government that engages diplomatically and appropriately with our partners.”
Why are press freedom groups concerned about this case?
Freedom of the press and human rights groups have feared that Assange’s prosecution under the U.S. Espionage Act sets “a dangerous precedent.”
Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower prosecuted 50 years ago for publishing the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War, said: “This extradition would mean that journalists, anywhere in the world, could be extradited to the U.S. “.
What is happening with the legal process?
In April, a UK court formally approved Assange’s extradition to the United States on espionage charges, but it was up to Home Secretary Priti Patel to sign it.
On Friday, the UK Home Office announced that Patel had approved the extradition, saying the UK courts “had not found it would be oppressive, unfair or an abuse of process to extradite Mr Assange”.
“Nor have they found that extradition would be inconsistent with his human rights, including his right to a fair trial and freedom of expression, and that while he is in the United States he will be treated appropriately, even with regard to his health, “said a man. said the office spokesman.
Sign up for the latest Guardian Australia news every morning
WikiLeaks immediately announced that the decision would be appealed (the Interior Ministry said Assange “retains the normal 14-day right to appeal”). Any recourse would probably focus on reasons such as the right to freedom of expression and whether the extradition request was politically motivated.
How was the government’s response different from the previous government’s position?
Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Attorney General Mark Dreyfus responded to Patel’s decision by noting that Australia “was not a party to Mr Assange’s case, nor can the Australian government intervene in legal matters. ‘another country’.
But they said they planned to “continue to convey our expectations that Mr Assange will be entitled to a fair trial, humane and fair treatment, access to adequate medical care and access to his legal team”. This is a position similar to what the former Australian government has repeatedly said in public.
But there was a critical addition to the statement referring to new global representations in the US and the UK: “The Australian government has made it clear in our view that Mr Assange’s case has taken too long and that “We must continue to express this view to the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States.”
What options does the government have to intervene?
The only real option for the Australian government is to pursue this issue vigorously at the political level.
The government has not explained exactly what it means to close the matter. One option would be to encourage the United States to step down. The Biden administration has previously said that this is a matter of the Department of Justice, which says it is acting independently.
Another option would be to encourage the US president to pardon Assange. If Assange were extradited and convicted and convicted, Australia could also press for the sentence to be commuted, similar to Manning’s conviction.
Ultimately, this is a question of how much political capital Albanese wants to use.
One of Assange’s strongest advocates, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie, believes the time for quiet diplomacy is over and the government should “put an end to this madness”.
“I think if Anthony Albanese made a clear and forceful public comment in support of Julian Assange, I think it would be helpful right now,” Wilkie told Sky News on Monday. He acknowledged the change in tone of the new government as “good”, but said it “meant nothing” because Patel had signed the extradition.
Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr has argued that Australia has been an “exemplary ally” of the US and that should count for something. Carr also notes the success of the Howard government in 2007, after years of growing calls to action, for the return of former Guantanamo Bay prisoner David Hicks to serve the remainder of his sentence in Australia.
Could Assange serve a sentence in Australia?
The US has already offered it. It was one of the guarantees that was crucial for a successful US appeal against a previous British court ruling blocking Assange’s extradition.
These guarantees included that Assange would not be subject to “special administrative measures” or detained in a maximum security “ADX” facility and could apply, if convicted, to be transferred to a prison in Australia.