Wikileak’s Prosecution or Persecution: Is this Western Democracy?

Lone Voices in Democratic Political Wilderness

According to BBC News dated 10th December 2010, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are the only two heads of states that have questioned or criticised Mr Assange's arrest. There are no other democratic voices from any other head of states. The democratic world seems to have become an arid democratic desert, with only two lone voices questioning about freedom of expression and democracy. If there was ever a democratic silence that can be felt, it is now, on the issue of Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange. This is no ordinary political silence. It is the silence of Western Democracy that has been hurt by the exposure of what President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva calls “… a diplomacy that appeared untouchable.”

What Are Wikileaks Claims?

In exposing the diplomacy that appeared untouchable, what are Wikileaks motives and objectives for doing so? In Wikileaks main page it is stated that “WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.” It is clear that Wikileaks:

1. Considers itself as a non-profit media organization that is a journalistic tool,

2. Is dedicated in bringing important news and information to the public,

3. Publishes material of ethical, political and historical significance,

4. Provides a universal way for revealing suppressed and censored justice.

In short, Wikileaks claims itself to be a non-profit organization that is a journalistic tool that serves the public in news and information for the purpose of justice. Wikileaks serves the public and justice. Let’s now see, what are America’s claims?

What Are America’s Claims?

According to BBC news dated 29th November 2010, we can understand that:

1. The leaked diplomatic cables are from 1966 to 2010 and are “… a huge sampling of communications between the US State Department and its embassies and consulates around the world.”

2. According Mrs. Clinton, the leaked diplomatic cables are “candid and sometimes unflattering views of world leaders and frank assessments of security threats.”

3. According to Mrs. Clinton, “diplomats often needed confidentiality to be effective.”

4. The exposure of the diplomatic cables are "… not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests, she said. It is an attack on the international community: the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.”

In short, America claims that the leaked diplomatic cables are private diplomatic messages, which are candid and frank assessments of world leaders and security threats. Its leak is against America’s foreign policy and international community. So, Wikileaks and America have their own different views about the same information. But the questions are: 1) whether the public has the right of access to what is considered privileged and private diplomatic messages? 2) Whether Wikileaks has committed an illegal or criminal act in publishing the received leaked diplomatic cables for the peoples’ knowledge? Who will decide?

Are Wikileaks And Jean Assange Being Prosecuted Or Persecuted?

Even before the question of who will decide on the above two questions, we now have deal with another unpleasant question. Are Wikileaks and Jean Assange being prosecuted or persecuted? Why is this question being asked? Legally, America has its rights to pursue a legal course of action through an open court and judiciary processes. If it does that without resorting to any draconian laws or instruments, then, it can at least say that it is following its famous American justice system. But before that can happen, we are witnessing some very unpleasant demonizing propagandas, labeling and heavy handed bureaucratic maneuvers which are normally practiced by dictatorships and authoritarian oligarchies.

The Telegraph, in its article dated Monday 13 December 2010, has a picture of a mean looking Sarah Palin who was quoted as saying “The founder of WikiLeaks should be hunted down just like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders…” Now, we all know that America has labelled al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders as terrorist. Thus, Sarah Palin is labelling Jean Assange as a terrorist, who should share their same fates. No matter what her political status in America, it does not give her the right to label another nationality and person as a terrorist especially when nothing has been proven. I am surprised, that the Australians have not protested vigorously against Sarah Palin’s political labeling and demonizing of one of their country man. Hey mates! Where are your Australian honors? Is this how you will let one of your countrymen to be bullied and demonized? No wonder, the Americans claim that it is within their diplomatic right to privately, candidly and subjectively label even the heads of state (former Australian Prime Minister included). Who gave Sarah Palin the right to be judge, jury and executioner? If Sarah Palin represents America or American justice system, Jean Assange will definitely not get justice in America. Such political labeling and demonizing raises the question, whether Wikileaks and Jean Assange are being prosecuted or persecuted.

BBC news on 8th December 2010 reported that, “PayPal has said that its decision to stop people from using its service to make donations to Wikileaks was made after a letter from the US government.” In this example, we see how the US government flexed its political and bureaucratic muscles to coerce and intimidate a commercial firm to toe the line. Wikileaks or its founder has yet to be found guilty in an American open court according American justice system. But already, political and bureaucratic coercion has been applied to persuade entities not to deal with Wikileaks as part of the strategy for political and social isolation. Is this American justice? Is this American democracy? Usually this kind of political coercion is found and used in totalitarian, authoritarian or authoritarian oligarchy countries and systems. It is least expected in an American style democracy. Yet, walla! It is in the American Democratic show. When political or bureaucratic coercion and intimidation is used before a just process of judicial examination and judgment, we have to ask whether; Wikileaks and Jean Assange are being prosecuted or persecuted.

Is This Western Democracy?

If the reactions and responses of America and its leadership in dealing with the issues of Wikileaks and Jean Assange are similar to those used in totalitarian, authoritarian or authoritarian oligarchy countries and systems - what has Western Democracy (including American Democracy) to offer to human rights and to democracy? The treatment of Wikileaks and Jean Assange raises these questions:

Does Western Democracy really support freedom of media?

Does Western Democracy really consider the voices of the people?

Does Western Democracy endorse political pack of wolf-like behavior?

Does Western Democracy endorse subjective labeling and demonizing an individual and entity?

Does Western Democracy endorse political persecution?

Does Western Democracy endorse lying to its own people in the name of diplomatic privileges?

Does Western Democracy political persecute individuals and entities for political ends?

Is There A Difference between Western Democracy and Totalitarian, Authoritarian or Authoritarian Oligarchy?

If there is no difference between how democratic and Oligarchy Authoritarian political leaders think and behave, then, what does Western Democracy really stand for in the global political world? Why should the rest of the world listen to Western Democracy? Is Western Democracy really democratic? Is human rights really practiced in Western Democracy? These questions are being raised, because, what is preached in Western

Democracy does not seem to tally with what is being practiced in the issues of Wikileaks and Jean Assange. Wikileaks and Jean Assange deserve a better democratic treatment than the ones they are getting now.