Stella Assange: “In Strasbourg so that a new Assange case won’t happen again”
“It is important not just to establish what happened, but also what the implications are”. Stella Assange does not only look back. Together with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, she also looks to the future and at the impact of the case on freedom of the press, now that with the Assange’s plea agreement, the US government has been able to assert – for the first time in U.S. history – that journalists who reveal classified documents in the public interest are committing an extremely serious crime, and that the United States can try extradite and put them in prison, no matter their nationality. Il Fatto Quotidiano interviewed Stella Assange in Strasbourg, where the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe just approved a resolution based on the report by the Rapporteur on Political Prisoners, Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir.
Could you please explain why the resolution matters?
As Julian himself explained during his address to the Committee, he made the decision to choose freedom over unrealisable justice. There was no realistic time for the case to actually reach a conclusion that might deliver justice. So he agreed to take a guilty plea. And what he declared himself guilty of is newsgathering, of communicating with his source, of obtaining information and communicating it to the public: what the US calls ‘a conspiracy’ to obtain and disclose national defense information. In light of the fact that the Assange case will never reach an independent court’s review, it is incredibly important to have this report and resolution by an independent appointee – someone appointed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and expert in these matters – conducting a long investigation, speaking to the parties and reaching independent conclusions, not just about what happened in the past, but about its broader implications for journalism in Europe. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly represents 46 nations, it is made up of lawmakers from the Council of Europe area, and the fact that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights appointed the Rapporteur to investigate, produce a report and a resolution is of utmost importance. It also means that these 46 nations now have independent analysis and recommendations about the grave threat that the precedent of the Assange prosecution and conviction poses for journalism and freedom of information in the European space. One of the most important aspects of this report is its findings within the context of transnational repression, and the way Julian was handed across borders and imprisoned using and instrumentalising mechanisms for mutual legal assistance and extradition, and instrumentalising them in such a way that Julian was pursued and improperly detained. In fact, the manner in which he was treated and persecuted falls within the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly ‘s definition of political prisoner.
We have seen how the UK members of the Parliamentary Assembly tried to reject the fact that JA’s prosecution and detention was politically motivated. Do you expect the UK authorities to come clean about their role in the persecution of Julian Assange, sooner or later?
The biggest failure in Julian’s case was the United Kingdom’s failure to enforce his rights. The finding by the Council of Europe that during the more than 5 years that Julian was in prison in Belmarsh – which is the highest security prison in the UK – he was a political prisoner, is extremely significant. The case against him, of course, was brought under the Espionage Act, which is a political offense; the circumstances around his detention are very clearly politically motivated, and the UK had many opportunities to not be an accessory in this political persecution. There were always administrative, formalistic excuses for keeping Julian in prison, but that is not unusual in the case of political imprisonment of dissidents and journalists: there is always some formalistic excuse for their continued detention. It’s very important that the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, which has its emphasis on human rights and the defense of free press, has rightly identified Julian as a political prisoner, that he fits the definition of political prisoner. The United Kingdom is a member state, so now that Julian is free, it is easier for the UK to actually take some distance and objectively and critically engage in recognising its own failure and ensure that this never happens again. I think this is the biggest takeaway: it should never happen again, and these failures cannot persist. There should never be another publisher in prison, and it should never be possible for extradition legislation to be abused in this way in order to silence a publisher and intimidate the press.
We saw Julian calm and articulate. How is he reacting to the injustice and the persecution he has endured?
I’m reluctant to put words in Julian’s mouth. I think anyone who wants to hear from Julian himself can go and watch his statement to the Committee of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. He was very articulate and analytical, and voiced his concern over the precedent that it sets with his case, asking the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly – and also the individuals who are lawmakers in their own countries of course – to take steps to ensure that this never happens again. Julian was eager to use this platform and the solemnity of the event to say that there are of course many cases like his, where a country aggressively persecutes, harasses and sometimes even kidnaps and assassinates journalists, dissidents and so on, and that often those people do not have the visibility that he has, which is why he chose this forum to address the public for the first time through the Committee. The catastrophic failure by the countries involved to enforce his rights needs to be addressed and corrected. There needs to be pushback, and that pushback has to come from the Council of Europe and its lawmakers, because there will be no court resolution to correct the course. So it is now up to this body to ensure that these failures don’t happen again.
As the first anniversary of the war in Gaza approaches, Julian Assange was very vocal in demanding truth and solidarity for the hundreds of journalists killed in Gaza and in Ukraine combined. Do you see the resolution as a key step in protecting journalism everywhere?
The vote is key recognition that journalists in Europe are exposed to retaliation of the worst kind, and that the safeguards that exist on paper mean nothing when a state decides to use its resources – which are comparatively limitless – to go after a single person. Julian spoke of the wars in Ukraine and in Gaza and the staggering numbers of journalists targeted and killed. Whether in war or in peace, the targeting of journalists serves to perpetuate impunity and prevent the truth from coming out. Stronger protections benefit all journalists everywhere, while weaker safeguards make them more vulnerable.
Finally, yesterday Julian made some jokes about the fact that he now has a mother-in-law, What is daily life like in the Assange family?
Julian was released very suddenly and we had to start from zero in Australia. We are taking every day as it comes, and also trying to figure out the next steps. All this is a process: it’s not easy, but it is also, in the big picture, not challenging compared to what we have been through. I think we are adapting very well to the new context, the kids are happy and of course we are overjoyed to be together. My mom has been travelling with us to help and look after the children. What’s next? Well, I think what’s next is really that we focus on Julian’s recovery and on getting used to being free again. That is our priority. I think Julian is trying to catch up with the world.