To get Julian Assange to face the Swedish allegations, America should back off

If the US promises not to extradite him from Sweden, Julian Assange may be able to put an end to the saga

For 15 days now, Julian Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The WikiLeaks founder, whose 41st birthday is today, is seeking to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations and has requested political asylum. Assange fears he will be held incommunicado in Sweden and ultimately handed over to authorities in the United States, who have confirmed they are continuing to investigate WikiLeaks for publishing thousands of classified government documents in 2010.

This latest bizarre episode in the Assange saga has sparked fiery arguments between supporters and critics of the divisive WikiLeaks frontman. Some have dismissed Assange’s fears as paranoia and accused him of attempting to dodge justice by seeking refuge in the embassy. Others have likened Assange’s plight to that of dissidents in countries like China, arguing that he is right to seek asylum given that there are continued calls for his extradition in America, where the vice-president has branded him a high-tech terrorist.

But what the supporters and critics do not seem to realise is that most of them share a common ground. Very few of Assange’s opponents, aside from a handful of rabid right-wing commentators, believe WikiLeaks should be prosecuted for its involvement in publishing classified documents. Even former New York Times editor Bill Keller, who has savaged Assange on several occasions, has said he would back WikiLeaks if a prosecution were to go ahead.

So the solution here seems obvious. Given that at the core of Assange’s asylum application are his fears that the US Department of Justice would like to lock him up, people on all sides of the debate should be calling for the Obama administration to give an assurance that it will not try to extradite Assange for his publishing work. Why? Because if the US government stopped pursuing Assange, he would go to Sweden. Then the prosecutors there could question him face-to-face, lodge formal charges if there is a case to be heard in court, take the thing to trial and let the judicial process run its course.

Assange has concerns that he will not get a fair trial in Sweden, in part due to what his legal team have argued were prejudicial comments made by the country’s prime minister about the case. But at least without fears of a US extradition hanging over his head, once the Swedish case was in motion Assange would have little else to worry about. Equally important, the women who made the allegations against him would get their chance to be heard. The conclusion, whatever the outcome, would bring closure to this long-drawn out affair which has now become nothing short of a complete fiasco.

It is worth recalling that when Assange was first arrested in London over the sexual assault allegations in December 2010, the US government was pleased. Then-defence secretary Robert Gates, visiting Afghanistan at the time, was asked for his reaction. He smirked and said: "sounds good to me." Gates’s off-the-cuff comment spoke volumes about how senior officials in the Obama administration had very little interest in the particulars of the Swedish case. There was a real sense at the time that they just wanted Assange to disappear, and that has not changed.

To top officials in the White House, Assange is undoubtedly seen as a threat, an agitator, a dangerous opponent they would like to see neutralised. But if the Obama administration, which has pursued a uniquely aggressive anti-whistleblower policy, was actually to launch a formal prosecution against Assange in a bid to extradite him, there would be counter-productive consequences. It would radicalise swathes of young people and be condemned by newspapers and NGOs around the world as an outrageous attack on press freedom. It would damage America’s standing in the world and fundamentally undermine Obama’s personal legacy as a president.

Let us not forget that Assange has helped expose war crimes, breaches of international law, and other questionable actions on an unparalleled scale. Obama has already lost a great deal of support due to his secret kill list, his out-of-control drone programme, and his failure to close prison camp Guantanamo Bay. An unjust prosecution against Assange would symbolise the political death knell of Obama – the man who, just four years ago, galvanised millions with his promises of hope and change.

Right now, Assange is in a small room in the Ecuadorian embassy, sleeping on what one man who visited him said was an inflatable mattress. His situation currently is not far from a kind of imprisonment, and all because he fears being handed over to America. Whether or not US authorities are foolish enough to actually attempt to prosecute Assange at some point down the line, they will be happy to see him face this crisis. In a sense, by refusing to rule out an extradition attempt they are punishing him by proxy.

Almost 7000 people have signed a petition calling for Ecuador to accept Assange’s asylum request – yet regardless of what the country decides, Assange can still be arrested by the Metropolitan police the moment he sets foot outside the embassy. And even if he somehow made it to Ecuador, he would be forced to live a life in exile for years to come, shadowed constantly by a cloud of fear and restricted in the countries he could visit.

It would make far more sense for Assange's supporters to join forces with some of his critics, shifting focus by lobbying the US government directly. Whatever your opinion of Assange's personality, that does not matter in the broader scheme of things. The US government’s desire to pursue a prosecution against him is an attack on principles of press freedom, principles that any democratic society must strive to defend.

Alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning was held in conditions described by the UN’s special rapporteur on torture as "cruel, inhuman and degrading" in a military prison for ten months. It was public indignation over his treatment that helped move him to a new prison, where he is now treated more humanely. There is no reason why a sustained and well-organised campaign, headed by some of Assange’s many high-profile backers, could not have a similar impact. An assurance from the US government that it will not seek to extradite Assange as part of its WikiLeaks investigation is the only way this saga can have a desirable ending.

Julian Assange, arriving for a hearing in the Supreme Court. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

The joy of only winning once: why England should be proud of 1966

We feel the glory of that triumphant moment, 50 years ago, all the more because of all the other occasions when we have failed to win.

There’s a phrase in football that I really hate. It used to be “Thirty years of hurt”. Each time the England team crashes out of a major tournament it gets regurgitated with extra years added. Rather predictably, when England lost to Iceland in Euro 2016, it became “Fifty years of hurt”. We’ve never won the European Championship and in 17 attempts to win the World Cup we have only won once. I’m going to tell you why that’s a record to cherish.

I was seven in 1966. Our telly was broken so I had to watch the World Cup final with a neighbour. I sat squeezed on my friend Colin’s settee as his dad cheered on England with phrases like “Sock it to them Bobby”, as old fashioned now as a football rattle. When England took the lead for the second time I remember thinking, what will it feel like, when we English are actually Champions of the World. Not long after I knew. It felt good.

Wembley Stadium, 30 July 1966, was our only ever World Cup win. But let’s imagine what it would be like if, as with our rivals, we’d won it many times? Brazil have been World Champions on five occasions, Germany four, and Italy four. Most England fans would be “over the moon” if they could boast a similarly glorious record. They’re wrong. I believe it’s wonderful that we’ve only triumphed once. We all share that one single powerful memory. Sometimes in life less is definitely more.

Something extraordinary has happened. Few of us are even old enough to remember, but somehow, we all know everything that happened that day. Even if you care little about the beautiful game, I’m going to bet that you can recall as many as five iconic moments from 50 years ago. You will have clearly in your mind the BBC commentator Kenneth Wolstenholme’s famous lines, as Geoff Hurst tore down the pitch to score his hat-trick: “Some people are on the pitch. They think it’s all over. It is now”. And it was. 4 - 2 to England against West Germany. Thirty minutes earlier the Germans had equalised in the dying moments of the second half to take the game to extra time.

More drama we all share: Geoff Hurst’s second goal. Or the goal that wasn’t, as technology has since, I think, conclusively proved. The shot that crashed off the cross bar and did or didn’t cross the line. Of course, even if you weren’t alive at the time, you will know that the linesman, one Tofiq Bakhramov, from Azerbaijan (often incorrectly referred to as “Russian”) could speak not a word of English, signalled it as a goal.

Then there’s the England Captain, the oh-so-young and handsome Bobby Moore. The very embodiment of the era. You can picture him now wiping his muddy hands on his white shorts before he shakes hands with a youthful Queen Elizabeth. Later you see him lifted aloft by his team mates holding the small golden Jules Rimet trophy.

How incredible, how simply marvellous that as a nation we share such golden memories. How sad for the Brazilians and Germans. Their more numerous triumphs are dissipated through the generations. In those countries each generation will remember each victory but not with the intensity with which we English still celebrate 1966. It’s as if sex was best the first time. The first cut is the deepest.

On Colin’s dad’s TV the pictures were black and white and so were the flags. Recently I looked at the full colour Pathe newsreel of the game. It’s the red, white and blue of the Union Jack that dominates. The red cross of Saint George didn’t really come into prominence until the Nineties. The left don’t like flags much, unless they’re “deepest red”. Certainly not the Union Flag. It smacks of imperialism perhaps. In 1966 we didn’t seem to know if we were English or British. Maybe there was, and still is, something admirable and casual about not knowing who we are or what is our proper flag. 

Twelve years later I’m in Cuba at the “World Festival of Youth” – the only occasion I’ve represented my country. It was my chance to march into a stadium under my nation’s flag. Sadly, it never happened as my fellow delegates argued for hours over what, if any, flag we British should walk behind. The delegation leaders – you will have heard of them now, but they were young and unknown then – Peter Mandelson, Trevor Phillips and Charles Clarke, had to find a way out of this impasse. In the end, each delegation walked into the stadium behind their flag, except the British. Poor Mandelson stood alone for hours holding Union Jack, sweltering in the tropical sun. No other country seemed to have a problem with their flag. I guess theirs speak of revolution; ours of colonialism.

On Saturday 30 July BBC Radio 2 will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final, live from Wembley Arena. Such a celebration is only possible because on 16 occasions we failed to win that trophy. Let’s banish this idea of “Fifty years of hurt” once and for all and embrace the joy of only winning once.

Phil Jones edits the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2. On Saturday 30 July the station celebrates the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final live from Wembley Arena, telling the story of football’s most famous match, minute by minuteTickets are available from: www.wc66.org