Whatever your opinion of Maduro, or socialism, a U.S. coup in Venezuela is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The U.S. empire has been interfering in Latin American politics for over a century, and the latest machinations against Venezuela by the foreign policy elite only serves to continue this sordid legacy. Outside of the establishments propaganda machine, and lost in the ideological battlefield between capitalism and socialism, the fundamental issue regarding Venezuelan sovereignty is often either being misinterpreted or intentionally misrepresented.  We (especially non- Venezuelan’s in the West) cannot frame the Venezuelan political crisis as President Maduro vs. some hypothetical, potentially more virtuous, leader, or whether the country should adopt globalism vs a closed off, centrally planned socialist economy. These questions can only be answered by the people of Venezuela themselves, either through the ballot box or in grass-roots public protests. The only question that should then concern Americans is whether their government should intervene in domestic Venezuelan politics, and as the following argument will demonstrate, doing so would be morally unjustifiable and disastrous in consequence. If the last one hundred years of U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America can serve as any lesson, we know what to expect, and why it must be prevented.

 

In 1915, President Woodrow Wilson invaded Haiti, essentially turning it into a colony under U.S. imperialism. In 1954, under the administration of Dwight Eisenhower,  the CIA orchestrated a coup d’état in Guatemala, and installed a military-backed oligarchy friendly to U.S. corporate interests. In 1961 John F. Kennedy authorized the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba, which subsequently created the Cuban Missile Crisis, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. In the early 1970’s, Nixon and then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger used the covert powers of the intelligence agencies to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and installed the right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile, which resulted in thousands being murdered, tortured, or imprisoned (as for Kissinger’s role in these war crimes, he has remained reticent). During the brutally violent civil war of El Salvador (1980-1992), the Reagan administration provided financial and military aid to the authoritarian government, who was widely known to be slaughtering it’s own citizens. By the time the conflict had come to an end, approximately 75,000 had been killed. Also during the golden years of “It’s morning again in America”, the CIA was complicit in secretly facilitating cocaine trafficking operations, in order to finance the Contra’s guerilla war against the Sandinista controlled government of Nicaragua (for an astoundingly well researched exposition on the subject, read Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance“. At the time of publication, the story was extremely controversial, and it eventually cost the author his life). In 1989, George H.W. Bush instigated “Operation Just Cause” and sent 25,000 troops to Panama, allegedly to hunt down and bring to justice the narco-terrorist Manuel Noriega, who coincidentally used to be a CIA asset and was paid generously for his espionage. The Panamanian Human Rights Committee and the Center for Investigation of Human Rights and Legal Aid estimate that 500 to 700 Panamanians died during the U.S. attack, while thousands more lost their homes and were displaced.

By understanding even the broad strokes of the historical relationship between the United States and Latin America, it’s not difficult to see why any pronouncements by the Trump administration of wanting to spread “freedom and democracy” to Venezuela is instantly suspicious. Adding to the already well grounded reasons for incredulity against Washington’s objectives is political events that’s took place during the early 2000’s, when the Marxist President Hugo Chávez was still in power. Taken from “The Wikileaks Files: The World According to U.S. Empire” in section two, the chapter on Venezuela (p.515-516)  ” Nevertheless, Chávez was popular and democratically elected. As the cables show, the US worked to bolster the Venezuelan opposition, which would engage in a series of attempts- some constitutional, some not- to oust Chávez: a military coup d’état (2002, overturned by mass public opposition just two days later); an economically damaging oil strike (2002-03) and a recall referendum (2004). US support for these efforts- especially the coup- would poison relations between the two countries. The US provided funds to groups and individuals involved in the coup,  and after the coup had occurred encouraged other countries to recognize the the coup government.”.  Many Americans might have forgotten, but you be certain the Venezuelans have not.

And so it seems history is repeating itself. Everything unfolding today is strikingly similar to past events, but now it is between the administrations of Donald Trump and Nicolás Maduro.

Arguing against U.S. organized regime change in Venezuela should not be conflated with a denial of Venezuela’s economic nightmare. Decades of socialism has brought the resource rich South American countries economy to complete ruin. Through bureaucratic ineptitude, malfeasance, and corruption, entire sectors of the economy were nationalized and driven into bankruptcy.  When this is combined with the economically suicidal monetary policies of the centralized bank with fiat currency, we are confronted with a tragic contemporary example of what socialism inevitably produces wherever it is tried.  No matter how hard Abby Martin and state funded teleSUR may try to spin the narrative, the current failing Venezuelan economy is directly correlated to the economic policies that were pushed by the socialist regimes of Hugo Chávez and now Nicolás Maduro. The country has faced hyperinflation for years, with it’s central bank trying to print it’s way out of it’s black-hole of national debt, while simultaneously maintaining it’s unsustainable and grossly mismanaged welfare programs. At the end of 2018, the bolívar had reached an annual inflation rate of 80,000% . The precipitous drop in purchasing power from the nations currency has made buying the most basic commodities increasing difficult. A remarkable piece by Reuters in August of 2018 showed pictures of everyday items next to the quantity of paper money needed to buy them. 1 kilogram of rice for 2,500,000 bolivars. A package of diapers for 8,000,000 bolivars. A bar of hand soap for 3,500,000 bolivars.  The list goes on. In an attempt to contain this inflation train wreck, the BCV has started issuing as new currency, the “sovereign bolivar” which is pegged to the fraudulent “Petro“, a state-backed imitation of cryptocurrency.

While the Venezuelan government is mostly responsible for the widespread poverty the people are suffering from, U.S. sanctions have been strategically used to exacerbate the current conditions, in hopes of exerting pressure on the current regime and forcing it’s leadership to change it’s ways. These “starvation sanctions”, as they have been called, serve a malicious, political purpose. The more desperate the underfed, malnourished, despairing population becomes, the more likely they are to mobilize into resistance groups and protest against Maduro. This is an old, cruel tactic from the playbook of Empires- using the people’s lives as pawns in a geopolitical game to depose of undesirable foreign leaders. When food becomes scarce, and the cost of available food is unaffordable due to market manipulation, larceny becomes more common, which can snowball into looting and rioting. Economic sanctions is often defined as a kind of “soft power” instrument for aggressive diplomacy, but the real world ramifications could not be more serious. Consider the comments made by former Secretary of State Madeleine Alright, who when asked in a “60 minutes” interview if she believed the sanctions against Iraq during the Clinton administration was worth the human cost replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it“. These sanctions resulted in approximately half a million Iraqi children dying, and had no effect on Saddam Hussein’s regime.

It seems however that the U.S. Deep State is growing impatient with the “soft power” methods employed so far. The crushing sanctions against Venezuela, which only accomplished punishing the beleaguered citizenry and not the state, is now just one strategy of many being actively used to bring about regime change. Real, authentic mass protests by Venezuelans have taken to the streets, a manifestation of their disenfranchisement and growing contempt for their government. Maduro’s regime has responded by becoming more authoritarian, and it’s oppressive measures are dismantling the last remnants of civil liberties from society. From violating freedom of the press, to the attempted dissolution of the National Assembly, and deliberate violence by government forces against civilian protestors, the nations turmoil is reaching a breaking point. Which is exactly what the deep state has been waiting for. The U.S. State Department, and the security/surveillance apparatus, has been closely monitoring the development of Venezuela’s civil unrest for years, and see’s opportunity where others only see tragedy. And then, from seemingly nowhere, a previously unknown, charismatic, young politician takes to the stage, and declares the Maduro regime illegitimate, and himself the new “interim” President.

So who is Juan Guaidó, the man which claims to be the savior of democracy in Venezuela? He was until January 23rd 2019 a relatively obscure politician in the National Assembly, and was virtually unknown to the international community. He was, however, a close and trusted contact to a number of powerful Washington insiders and Western institutions. A recent report by Consortium News pieces together Guaidó’s background, and in the process builds a persuasive theory asserting Guaidó to be a product of the Deep States controlled opposition, trained for the position over years and waiting in the wings should the opportunity arise. While Guaidó might publicly present himself as a man of the people, ready to restore peace and stability to a fractured nation, the real question remains who are his “people”, and where do his loyalties lie? His close association with the non-profit NGO “CANVAS” (Center for Applied Non-Violent Action), is funded through the notorious National Endowment for Democracy, which itself has deep ties to the CIA. In the absence of incontrovertible, substantiated evidence (as of this writing), the mystery of Guaidó and his motives remain unclear. It is feasible, like some have claimed, that he is a Manchurian candidate, selected by the U.S. intelligence community to play a role advantageous to foreign powers interests. It is also feasible, however, that Guaidó  is nothing more than an opportunistic politician, capitalizing on the political instability to advance his own private ambitions. In any case, it remains to be seen if Guaidó is capable of leading an anti-government revolution and dethroning Maduro, because as of now the population is sharply divided for their support for two separate individuals who both claim to be the President.  Maduro still maintains control over the military, while Guaidó has the official support of the U.S., Canada, and many European countries. Juan Guaidó’s suspicious past, along with his sudden and inexplicable political ascendancy,  deserves both skepticism and scrutiny, and any claims he’s made thus far on the presidency lack credibility.

For those who still suffer from delusions of American exceptionalism, and a misguided belief in Washington’s benevolence towards the Venezuelan people, consider the recent appointment of Neo-conservative Elliott Abrams as special U.S. envoy to Venezuela. Elliot Abrams has a long history in elite foreign policy circles, working to ensure USG national security objectives are accomplished at any cost. In 1981, as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Abrams would attempt to cover-up atrocities committed by the El Salvadoran government death squads. This was a duplicitous, but necessary act of public image management, because the Reagan administration considered the authoritarian regime in El Salvador a key ally in Central America. In 1991 Abrams pled guilty to withholding critical information about the Iran-Contra scandal, and was subsequently convicted, but graciously pardoned under George H.W. Bush. He would later go on to serve several important positions for George W. Bush’s administration(unlikely a coincidence), where he was accused of having foreknowledge of the 2002 coup d’état against President Hugo Chávez, and implicitly signally the White Houses approval.

If Elliot Abrams involvement in crafting the U.S. governments policy towards Venezuela isn’t enough to make you question any official noble intentions, then National Security Advisor and veteran warmonger John Bolton’s recent interview on Fox News is refreshingly forthright. After several minutes of establishment propaganda, Bolton candidly reveals the true motives behind the U.S.G’s push for regime change “We’re looking at the oil assets, the single most important income to the government of Venezuela- we’re looking at what to do with that..and we want everyone to know, we’re looking at all of this very seriously, we don’t want any American businesses or investors to caught by surprise” followed by “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we can have American oil companies invest in and produce oil capabilities in Venezuela”. Straight from the walruses mouth, such unabashedly honest realpolitik is seldom found on cable news.

Again, a more nuanced, careful analysis of the Venezuelan crisis is needed. It is myopic to say, as many journalists from left-wing outlets who are sympathetic to socialism might suggest, that the entire crisis has been precipitated by Washington. On the other side of the ideological divide, many want to paint a one-dimensional narrative that all of Venezuela’s problems were created by Marxists who gained control of the government and seized the means of production. A more objective, but less appealing to the ideologues, explanation would take into account the profound effects of both influences. Conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals throughout the West should reject the U.S. policy of subversion and hostility towards Venezuela, not because they support the political philosophy of socialism, but because the people of Venezuela must have control over their countries destiny. Cutting through the quagmire of misinformation, the U.S. empire’s concerted destabilization efforts in Venezuela is for all of the old reasons- to expand and preserve global military and economic hegemony. Let the psychopathic war planners in the hallowed halls of Washington D.C. know- hands off the República Bolivariana de Venezuela.

 

To contact the author of this article, write to Quinctius1991@protonmail.com

 

 

 

 

The Tragedy of Julian Assange and the Future of Journalism

 

 

 

For almost seven years, Julian Assange, the founder and editor of Wikileaks, has been trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. In the summer of 2012, the government of Ecuador, at the time under the administration of President Rafael Correa, granted Assange political asylum.  Being marked as public enemy number one by the U.S power establishment, the reliably obsequious British government issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to meet the conditions of his bail. Fearing that his extradition to Sweden (wanted for questioning under highly suspicious circumstances) would result in his extradition to the U.S. , where he would likely be sentenced to life in prison, or face capital punishment, Assange took refuge in the embassy. The story of how the most influential journalist of our time has been forced into solitary confinement (tantamount to imprisonment) is one of tremendous importance, and also emblematic of how modern, ostensibly constitutional democracies operate when their hold on power is threatened.  The legal and ethical predicament of Assange should concern anyone who claims to believe in freedom of speech, holding those in positions of authority accountable, and the future of journalism itself. Recent developments paint a bleak outlook for the fate of Julian Assange and Wikileaks, and these ominous events deserve close examination.

The purpose of this TMR article is not to present a meticulous chronology of every publication by Wikileaks, or to enumerate all of their greatest leaks. However, in order to better understand the context of Assange’s plight, and also for it’s heuristic value,  a condensed history is necessary.

One way you can be certain Wikileaks has been an exceedingly effective organization is by how it has gained fierce enemies in both major political parties. Back during the Bush era, Democrats celebrated Wikileaks mission of transparency, praising it’s courageous and important publications. In 2007 Wikileaks published the Kroll report, presenting evidence of how the former President of Kenya Daniel arap Moi and his administration had illegally misused billions of dollars from public coffers. In November of that same year Wikileaks published the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures of Guantanamo Bay, exposing shocking human rights violations. Other publications around this period included the Minton Report, a secretly commissioned analysis by the multinational company Trafigura, which showed various toxic pollutants being dumped off  the Ivory Coast of Africa. Trafigura hired a team of lawyers to obtain a super-injunction against the BBC and other British news outlets to prevent them from reporting on the incriminating document, but Wikileaks circumvented their attempts of censorship by releasing the entire Minton Report online.  Sarah Palin’s private email being used for official business (something of a precursor for another high profile politician many years later), fraudulent and illegal activities by banks such as Julius Bär  and Kaupthing (the later serving as a contributing factor to major protests in Iceland, and the eventual criminal prosecution of many banking executives) were all critically important sources of information which made Wikileaks famous. At the time, all of this material gained the enthusiastic support of liberals throughout the west. For many conservatives, opinion was mixed, although Assange was regularly labeled as a “traitor” and a threat to American “national security” by Neo-conservatives and particularly chauvinistic Republicans.

 

But it wasn’t very long until a new administration came into power with the promises of “hope and change”, and with it more leaks revealing their own corruption and criminal behavior. The most valuable leaks and subsequent publications during the Obama years included the notorious “Collateral Murder” video of an Apache helicopter killing over a dozen people in Iraq, including innocent civilians and two Reuters news journalists. This was followed by Cablegate, over 250,000 classified diplomatic cables from the U.S. state department, which not only showed wrongdoing on the part of the U.S, but nearly every government on the planet. These leaked documents had the immediate effect of contributing to sociopolitical conditions in Tunisia that resulted in the 2011 revolution and the removal of president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. In 2013, secret drafts of the international trade agreements TPP (Trans-pacific Partnership) TTIP (The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ) and TISA (Trade in Services Agreement) were published by Wikileaks, shining light on the rapid development of globalism and powerful international financial and corporate networks. In July of 2015, Wikileaks published a number of leaked classified documents originating from the NSA, showing how the intelligence agency had been spying on members of the Japanese government, and several Japanese corporations such as Mitsubishi (presumably for economic espionage purposes).

 

Needless to say, these leaked documents and the media’s coverage of them had a profound effect on political discourse in the U.S and throughout the world, and changed the dynamics of international diplomacy. At the time of Cablegate’s release, Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State, and her reputation, along with the entire national security establishment, was severely damaged by the unfiltered and illuminating truth of real American foreign policy. In response to the deluge of classified documents entering the public domain and stories from said documents dominating news headlines, Hillary Clinton asked her staff “Can’t we just drone this guy?”. Bipartisan outrage ensued, with Bob Beckel on Fox News saying “Dead men can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, treasonous, and he’s broken every law in the United States. The guy ought to be- and I’m not for the death penalty,  so if I’m not for the death penalty, the only way to do it is illegally shoot the son of a bitch“. Both Vice President Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell described Assange as “a high-tech terrorist“. During an interview on CBC, political science Professor Tom Flanagan casually remarked “Well I think Assange should be assassinated“.

 

But it wasn’t until the American presidential election of 2016 that a significant number of liberal sentiment would be turned against Wikileaks, while conversely gaining support by a surprising percentage of conservatives. Whatever wrath that had been percolating but restrained against Wikileaks during the Obama years would be unleashed as soon as the Podesta emails were published, along with a massive database of over 30,000 from Hillary Clinton’s private (and illegal) email server. Suddenly, the virtues of political transparency were forgotten and met with contempt by millions of Democratic voters. Wikileaks, who was once a force for justice, was now a treacherous adversary of democracy. The scandal hit the election like a hurricane, but lost in the unhinged outrage was the actual contents of the emails, and their indispensable value to the public. Buried within thousands of emails were some of the most incriminating and damning revelations of modern U.S. politics, certainly deserving comparisons to Watergate. Incontrovertible evidence revealed deeply rooted corruption within the DNC, and how high ranking democratic operatives worked tirelessly to sabotage Bernie Sanders. As a result, the acting chairperson of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Shultz was forced to resign. But even more pervasive and disturbing was the close relationship between the Clinton campaign and many mainstream news organizations. An internal list of media allies included the New York Times, The Wallstreet Journal, the Washington Post,  CNN, The Huffington Post, Vox, and others.

 

A more detailed record of how the DNC had become an immensely anti-democratic cesspool, and the unethical relationships between Clinton loyalists in the MSM and her campaign (which came as very little surprise) , was already generating uncontrollable levels of controversy. But none of that would be able to match the far more extraordinary and sinister truths to come out of the published leaks. According to a number of private communications, while serving as Secretary of State, Clinton acknowledged that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar were secretly bankrolling the terrorist organization known as ISIS/ISIL, while at the same time donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Furthermore, it shows how Saudi Arabia started pouring money into the Clinton Foundation, and in a blatant quid pro quo, using her position in the state department, authorized the largest arms deal between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in history – which was worth approximately $80 billion. Hillary Clinton’s love for war was no secret, but emails from the leaked collection demonstrate how she became the primary force behind the invasion of Libya. Communications explicitly reveal how Clinton calculated regime change in Libya, and eliminating the refractory Muammar Gaddafi, could be used as a method of bolstering her reputation on foreign policy (therefore playing to her advantage in a future presidential bid). In a more equitable society, these incredible facts would have not only have decimated Clinton’s political career, but also led to criminal prosecution.  Clinton may have lost the presidential election, but she remains a wealthy, socially popular, free woman, despite her reprehensible, untenable actions. Meanwhile, the man who revealed her crimes to the world continues to languish in state-coerced confinement, his freedom, physical health, and financial means diminished to ruins.

 

The sexual assault accusations against Assange, which have been used to galvanize his opponents, shouldn’t be ignored. However, the circumstances remain so dubious, and the legal process which was implemented so questionable, that any reasoning individual should view them with extreme skepticism. The MSM has successfully spun an entirely misleading account of the Swedish investigation, and this necessitates dispelling a number of misconceptions. Firstly, Mr. Assange was never charged with any crime. In fact, Swedish prosecutors have officially dropped the investigation. The premise of the investigation alleged that Mr Assange had two separate intimate affairs with women, who have chosen to remain anonymous, but complained to authorities that Assange refused to take a STD test after having unprotected sex. Both Assange and the alleged victims maintain that intercourse was consensual, something that is often omitted in the MSM (or deceitfully replaced with sensationalistic headlines insinuating Assange is guilty of rape). Considering that Assange and Wikileaks has made enemies with the worlds more powerful, and dangerous, institutions, it is not unfeasible that the entire scandal was actually a carefully planned honey trap operation to discredit him.  The U.S. intelligence agencies, along with the British, Russian, Chinese, etc, all have a well documented history of using these types of “dirty tricks” in their clandestine activities. But with an absence of evidence, this can only be taken as speculation. A far more likely scenario is Assange’s promiscuous personal life ran into number of emotionally charged conflicts, and the dispute was then picked up and manipulated by those who wish to see him and his organization destroyed.

 

Recent developments do not bode well for Assange. Mike Pompeo, then director of the CIA, arrogantly denounced Wikileaks as “a non-state hostile intelligence service”. Attorney general Jeff Sessions claims Assange’s arrest is a “priority” of the Department of Justice. On November 15th 2018 it was confirmed through court filings that U.S. prosecutors have obtained a sealed indictment against Assange. Less serious threats, but nevertheless detrimental to his situation, are emerging from unexpected places. With old colleagues publishing thinly veiled attacks on his integrity, and prominent documentary film director Laura Poitras releasing a film to denigrate Assange’s public image, it seems his allies are few in number, and his detractors multiply. More troubling than his negative perception in the court of public opinion is the libelous hit piece recently published by the Guardian, aiming to embroil Assange in a controversy which would carry grave implications.

 

On November 27th 2018 the Guardian released the “bombshell” story of how Paul Manafort, formerly Donald Trump’s campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.  The problem with this story becomes abundantly clear after reading it. The three authors, Luke Harding, Dan Collyns, and Fernando Villavicencio offer absolutely no evidence. But the article is fraught with even more problems which should raise serious concerns. It has been pointed out by various observant individuals, of a seemingly inexplicable discrepancy between the printed copy of the article, and the digital one. On the Guardians website, the story makes no mention of the third author, Fernando Villavicencio. After various investigative journalist did some digging, it turns out Fernando Villavicencio has a history of duplicitous activities, such as secretly passing doctored documents to the Guardian, attempting to portray the administration of Rafael Correa in an unflattering light regarding  multilateral trade negotiations. Once the Guardian piece became viral on social media, both Manafort and Assange issued vehement denials, followed by statements from the former consul and first secretary at the Ecuadorian Embassy Fidel Narváez, who asserts no meetings ever took place. Wikileaks has launched a public fund to file a lawsuit against the Guardian, and Manafort, who is facing his own legal woes, is considering similar actions. Whether there will be any repercussions for the Guardians fabrications remains to be seen, but because the paper has consistently aligned themselves with the establishments narrative in recent years, and thus served their agenda,  the chances are unlikely. Such breaches in journalistic standards stop being problematic when you devote your fealty to the political class. They always take care of their own, so long as you remain faithful.

 

Wikileaks is unequivocally the single most important political publisher in the world today. Since 2007 the organization has published over 10 million secret documents, far surpassing all of the traditional mainstream press combined. From the Afghanistan and Iraq war logs, exposing war crimes committed by the U.S. military and NATO forces, to Vault 7, revealing sophisticated hacking tools developed by the CIA, Wikileaks is an invaluable source of information not only to journalists and scholars, but the public. The organizations immaculate record speaks for itself- of the millions upon millions of documents published, not a single one was ever found to be false or inaccurate. There has never been a single case where their material’s authenticity was challenged, and this has given them a level of credibility without peer. It has also has earned the reputation of being the most secure platform on the internet for whistleblowers, never once violating their sources anonymity (Chelsea Manning’s identity was revealed to authorities by ex-hacker Adrian Lamo, not Wikileaks). The publishers unyielding, uncompromising commitment to truth, and it’s mission of bringing political transparency to the public, has changed the world we live in. No amount of propaganda, or self-serving political theater can change this new reality. Despite the onslaught of defamatory stories by the MSM, who once richly benefited from Wikileaks material and willingness to collaborate, no honest argument can claim Wikileaks hasn’t fundamentally changed how people perceive political power in the modern era.

 

On December 4th 2015 a human rights group from the United Nations officially declared Julian Assange was being arbitrarily detained, and has been deprived of his civil liberties. In their assessment, they found the Swedish and British governments to be responsible for his predicament, and that he is entitled to compensation for the unjust treatment he has been subjected to. The UK government has chosen to ignore their evaluation, showing no signs of complying with international law and ending their malicious siege. Since Assange entered the embassy in 2012 and was granted political asylum, the police have been patrolling outside the property around the clock (at the taxpayers expense), and maintaining continuous, heavy surveillance of the building.

Since May of 2017, Ecuadorian leadership under Lenín Moreno has been interpreted as far less accommodating than his predecessor, and the tension between Assange and the government is rising. After having his internet access disconnected, and thus being completely cut off from the outside world, Assange appointed his confidant and long time Wikileaks associate Kristinn Hrafnsson as editor in chief. These desperate measures makes clear the perilous conditions Wikileaks has to struggle against are only escalating. The fate of the world’s most influential journalist has become increasingly uncertain, and no amount of protest or public outcry has made any discernible difference to those who have stolen his freedom.

If Assange is prosecuted, it will represent the modern day trial of Socrates. Assange, like the ancient Athenian philosopher, is an iconoclastic idealist, who has challenged the status quo. Assange is a revolutionary, but let us pray not a martyr. We must demand justice for Julian Assange, lest he be forced to drink from a chalice of hemlock.

 

 

“Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth”

Gautama Buddha

 

 

 

Correction: The original TMR article, published 1-11-2019, inaccurately stated the two women at the center of the sexual misconduct investigation have remained anonymous. The Swedish press have identified the individuals in question as Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen.

 

 

 

To contact the author of this article, write to Quinctius1991@protonmail.com