Why Ecuador is now letting Sweden question Julian Assange

Ecuador has long offered to let Swedish prosecutors visit the WikiLeaks founder at their London embassy.

Peter Nicholls/Reuters
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange makes a speech from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in February.

Ecuador’s foreign ministry said on Thursday that it would soon set a date for Swedish prosecutors to question Julian Assange at its embassy in London, which the WikiLeaks founder has made his de facto residence for the last four years.

“It means that a questioning can make the case go forward,” Swedish Prosecution Authority spokeswoman Karin Rosander told the Associated Press. “This is decisive to be able to take a decision whether to formally charge him or not.”

Mr. Assange first took refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in June 2012 after being accused by two women of involvement in a rape case in Sweden, and was granted a form of asylum by Ecuador two months later. Three of the four sex-crime allegations against him have expired, NPR noted in February. The fourth and last allegation, of rape, carries a ten-year statute of limitations that will not expire until 2020, according to Australia’s ABC.

In March 2015, Sweden reversed its longstanding refusal to interrogate Assange at the embassy in London, as Ecuador had offered. Prosecutors attributed the reversal to the statute of limitations.

"My view has always been that to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview," said lead prosecutor Marianne Ny then, according to the BBC.

"Now that time is of the essence, I have viewed it therefore necessary to accept such deficiencies in the investigation and likewise take the risk that the interview does not move the case forward."

Assange maintains that the claims are “without basis,” insisting that his encounters with the women were consensual. He says he fears that Swedish authorities could extradite him to the United States for prosecution over the publishing of leaked documents by WikiLeaks – a fear that Ecuador’s government deemed credible in awarding him asylum.

In its announcement on Thursday, Ecuador reaffirmed the validity of Assange’s asylum, saying it would “last as long as the circumstances that motivated the concession of said asylum, in particular the fear of suffering political persecution.”

In 2013, US officials told The Washington Post that the Justice Department would probably not bring charges against Assange, because there would be no way to do so without also prosecuting a host of other journalists who published classified material. Assange’s defense team remains skeptical given that the Justice Department has not closed its investigation or made an official announcement that they would not pursue charges against him.

Assange has reemerged as a wildcard on the US political scene after WikiLeaks published emails from the Democratic National Committee, ahead of the July convention, revealing that DNC operatives had favored Hillary Clinton over the insurgent Bernie Sanders, against party neutrality rules. He has also emerged as a chief foe of Hillary Clinton, whom he believes to have pushed to indict him over the publication of diplomatic cables, noted The New York Times in July.

This week, Assange sought to dispel claims of Russian responsibility for the DNC leaks, and seemed to suggest on Dutch TV that the July shooting death of DNC employee Seth Rich could have been in retribution for suspected collaboration with WikiLeaks.

“Our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that,” said Assange.

“We have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources face serious risks. That’s why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity." 

WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of Mr. Rich’s murderer, reported the Telegraph on Tuesday. But Joel Rich, the father of the victim, accused WikiLeaks of "playing a game" with his son’s death, calling the idea that it could have been linked to political retribution “bizarre.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.