Julian Assange: Can he survive this ordeal?

Julian Assange has come to redefine activism and change the face of modern journalism. A self-styled champion of free speech and a believer in the concept of "open-governance". But can this nomadic Australian-born computer genius actually face the consequences of his own invention? 

In 2010, Assange became famous for releasing to the public some of the most damaging US diplomatic cables many of which were confidential and secret information on the website Wikileaks. His idea is to lift the veil on the internal workings of governments round the world, in an attempt to create this concept of open governance where the activities of the world's superpowers can be put in check. A laudable idea if you ask me, and a very attractive one too to all journalists round the world. But behind the excitement of this type of method lies a very disturbing reality. What could be the potential consequence of highly classified diplomatic files ending up in the public domain, accessible to anyone with a computer and an internet connection? As much as Assange wants a free and open world politics, did he actually contemplate the potential dangers inherent in unveiling the private activities of sovereign nations in full glare of the public? 

In an age of terrorism, ethnic violence and cyber warfare, how will these information be processed by the public? Imagine Al Qaeda learning the internal workings of the American government through some of those diplomatic cables, imagine previous allied countries suddenly developing animosity towards one another due to exposed private discussions of its diplomats, imagine a continent like Africa where there are many ethnic groups and strong affiliations to these groups, where politics is still largely conducted along ethnic lines, will deal with private discussions of its rulers. There are so many potential dangers to putting private government information in the public space. First of all, the public are not trained to process the information contained therein and many will interprete the information out of context. Lives will be put at risk in environments where there are deep political and ethnic divisions. 

Many see Assange as a hero and a man fighting for the ordinary people. But this is also a man who in times of adversity is ready to "dine with the devil", by seeking asylum in a country whose ideals and track record are almost completely opposite to what he believes. Ecuador is a country ruled by a President notorious for curtailing press freedoms and prosecuting journalists who dare challenge him. In 2011, Human Rights Watch revealed Ecuador's President Rafael Correa's war on Press freedoms in his country. But here he is protecting Julian Assange, who if was an Ecuadorian journalist would have been facing jail for his activities. It is an irony that Rafael Correa prosecutes Assange-types in his country and yet Assange is willing to seek protection from such a country. He contradicts himself in my opinion.

Activists like Assange are rare, he's an intelligent man with a flawed world view. There is no way governments can run with absolute transparency. It is a myth and a dangerous one at that. Revealing these government secrets publicly, whatever they are, could be likened to releasing private personal information of individuals on a public website which is certainly a crime. Governments have a right to privacy and secrecy, though criminal activities of governments should be exposed in the right manner, and not in a public space, because many ordinary people wouldnt even know what to do with such information. And some may use them for even more criminal ends. 

Julian Assange's stand-off with America is set to go on for as long as he is willing to remain in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The UK has guaranteed he wouldn't be granted a safe passage to Ecuador, and will be handed over to Swedish authorities where he has a pending case of sexual assault and rape. Whether the allegations against him in Sweden are true is yet to be ascertained, but I wont be surprised if they are, as everyone fears, trumped up charges to facilitate his extradition to the US. I am not saying the US is right to seek prosecution against Julian Assange under its Espionage Act, afterall, earlier this year they protected the Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng against authorities of his own country by giving him refuge at the US embassy in China and facilitated his onward asylum in America. But I believe sovereign countries have the right to keep their secret and confidential files the way they intended. It is a sovereign right of every nation and a threat to that right is a form of aggression. 

Julian Assange has a lot of admirers and supporters all over the world, and I completely understand that. But the potential of his methods is one that fills me with trepidation.

US Navy SEAL Team Six - The world's strongest elite squad

US Navy SEALsWe all cheered in applause and admiration when news filtered in on Tuesday night that the same elite squad of the US Navy Seals who fired the killer shot at US enemy number one, Osama Bin Laden, have also succeeded in freeing two US aid workers kidnapped by Somali terrorists in October last year. The squad known as Team Six of the US Navy SEALs, parachuted from a special ops aircraft into the compound where the aid workers were being held by kidnappers, a firefight ensued and the kidnappers suffered all the casualties. Not one SEAL was injured. President Obama personally authorised the mission, as was the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden.

The world keeps wondering who exacly are the members of this elite squad who deliver precise surgical military operations against the enemy in the most professional manner, almost like a script out of 007.

The US Navy SEAL Team Six was created by, now retired SEAL, Richard Marcinko, back in 1980, after the failed attempt by special forces to rescue American citizens held hostage by followers of Ayatolla Khomeini in Iran. The US special forces aircraft ended up in a fiery crash, killing all SEALs on board. Richard Marcinko was charged with the job of building a special elite unit called the Team Six, which will be able to undertake the most dangerous of military assignments with acute precision on behalf of the US government. 

SEALs in training, bound and submerged in water in freezing conditions (courtesy abc news)The SEAL Team Six is made up of guys with the most extensive military training in the world. It is an exclusive group of guys between the ages of 26-33 usually with a bachelors degree or higher and years of battlefield experience under their belt. They endure the most intensive training in the world. They become the best anywhere at anything, whether on Sea, Air or Land (SEAL). These are literally the best of the best. 

An exclusively all male unit, Team Six, kick asses wherever they go. To be a SEAL, the training is a two-year long experience from hell. They are submereged in arctic conditions, locked in tear-gas filled rooms, bound hands-and-legs and forced to swim long distances in the most dangerous of conditions. These men are stretched to limits you and I can only imagine. 75% of potential members never make it through the training. If you do make it through the training, you become a SEAL, but to be considered for membership of Team Six, you need years of battle field experience and more training, where you are built to almost super-human level. Navy SEALs have a mental fortitude almost second to none, failure is not an option for these men. Team Six members are never identified, and they are very discrete about their identities. 

Is Palestine on the road to being UN's 194th member?

Palestine flagI have been reading the headlines and my great question at the end is why is America so opposed to a free Palestinian State? President Obama has made it clear that he'll use the US's veto power on the UN security council to quash any attempts by the Palestinian authorities to seek a seat within the United Nations, even though just months ago he declared his support for a return to pre-1967 border arrangements with Israel to create a Palestinian state. He is now saying the way forward is not seeking the creation of a Palestinian state through the UN but a return to negotiations with Israel is the only solution to the mid-east crises. It still baffles me that America who have showed their support for democracy, freedom and human rights in the middle east, usually make a 360 degrees turn around when it comes to Palestine. Any attempt or desire for Palestinians to have their own state is met with scorn and anger within the white house. For more than four decades, the Palestinian people have lived under Israeli occupation and have endured years of violent uprisings usually quashed ferociously by Israel. 

Well, I know the subject is a very deep and complex one, and I won't say I have all the facts at hand, but from what I have been able to gather, the creation of a Palestinian state through the UN without negotiations with Israel will probably lead to more bloodshed in the region. Israel views Palestine as a terror state ruled by the dreaded Hamas, and its use of brute force is seen as self-defence to protect itself from Palestine. The creation of a Palestinian state through the UN will, in US and Israeli opinion, give legitimacy to the terror tactics used by Hamas. Palestine can then have borders, which are not mutually agreed upon, which they will defend fiercely against Israel and Israel will retaliate with 10 times more force leading to more bloodshed across the region. I know Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader has said that they are "not seeking membership to Al-qaeda nor the Mafia, they are seeking membership of the UN, why is that a problem". As far as I can see, that is a simplistic way of looking at it, and the issues are more complex than that. Israel will never agree to an imposed Palestinian border, with all the land issues and religious dimensions to it and neither will Palestine agree to an Isreali-imposed border for a Palestinian state. The only way forward is that it has to be mutually agreed to prevent an all-out war in the region. 

President Obama is in a very difficult position as he doesnt want to be seen to veto the aspirations of Palestinians for "independence" from Israel (which could further worsen anti-American sentiments in the Arab world) and neither does he want to offend Israel by "sitting on the fence", as Israel is a strong and long-standing ally, and the Jewish population in America make up a strong electorate who could put his second term aspirations in jeopardy. But in my opinion, its not about politics, but finding a solution to the problems between Israel and Palestine. True, a negotiated peace is better than an imposed one.

It is unlikely that the Palestinian bid for a seat on the United Nations will go through, but the attempt has made everyone ponder on the possibilities of it and its consequences. Palestinians are tired of endless negotiations with Israel, which usually amounts to nothing in the end. In my opinion, there is an arrogance within the Israeli authorities that makes a balanced negotiation difficult. Now being realistic, how do you negotiate with a neighbour that is 10 times stronger and more influential than you? Israel continues to expand their occupied territories on Palestinian land (historically) while Palestinians are made to work for Israel. The situation is unacceptable, but the only way forward is mutual agreement. But in a world where the strong oppresses the weak, how is fair negotiation possible?