SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Curtains Are Closing on the Julian Assange Show

PLANK DECEMBER 21, 2012

The Curtains Are Closing on the Julian Assange Show

LONDON – The lights were bright on the curtains. It was the hush before the start of the play, the moment when the audience and the star alike breathe in, stomachs tightened. The cameramen at their tripods leaned forward to check the focus.

The curtains parted, and there he was: blonde hair, his pallor accentuated by the harshness of the lights, the world’s biggest cyber-activist. For one night only: the Julian Assange show.

“Good evening, London,” he said in his cultured-Australian accent, standing on a tiny semi-circular balcony with all the assurance of a star performing in the West End’s finest theater.

It was Dec. 20, and the WikiLeaks founder’s appearance marked six months since his auto-incarceration in London’s Ecuadorean embassy. Although Assange was within inches of British police tasked with detaining him, the balcony on which he stood is, owing to the vagaries of international law, Ecuadorian territory. Thus, he could do what he pleased—namely, to speak at great length about perceived injustices.

Sweden wants to try Assange on sexual assault charges, and Britain has promised to arrest him if he steps foot on London pavement. Ecuador has granted him asylum—and a room in which to live. Assange says Sweden only wants to detain him so as to hand him over to the United States, which is angry that his WikiLeaks organization released millions of classified American documents. U.S. officials deny such a “secret warrant” exists, and Swedish officials say they just want to see justice done.

His speech was classic Assange, but nothing we hadn’t heard before. He began with his own plight, his 185 days in the embassy, and he thanked his supporters for holding vigils for him. A documentary crew off to my left had brought a loudhailer and tried to ask him questions. He, apart from a slight tilt of his chin, ignored them and continued his soliloquy, moving from himself to the plight of the world.

“Our buildings can only be as tall as their bricks are strong. And our civilization is only as strong as its ideas are true,” he intoned, periodically earning cheers and cries from the 100 or so supporters present.

“When our media is corrupt. When our academics are timid. When our history is filled with half-truths and lies. Our civilization will never be just. It will never reach the sky.”

The corruptness of the media is one of Assange’s favored themes. He briefly allied with the mainstream press in 2010 to publish the vast trove of State Department cables he had obtained, but he fell out with them shortly after. (He falls out with most people he works with—publishers, the press, WikiLeaks colleagues. His latest friend is RT, a television channel owned by Russia. The Kremlin couldn’t be further from the transparency and journalistic rights that Assange craves, so how long their friendship will last is anyone’s guess.)

There was a time when he cooperated closely with the Guardian, the left-liberal British newspaper that published many of the leaked diplomatic cables. Now, relations have broken down irreparably, and a Guardian interviewer referred to him this month as looking like an “in-patient” and as “someone convalescing from a breakdown.” The interview was about Assange’s new book, Cypherpunks, but spent as much time questioning his sanity.

Standing next to me on Thursday was Luke Harding, Guardian correspondent and co-author of the book on which a forthcoming Dreamworks movie about Assange is based. In an entertaining subterfuge, he felt obliged to hide his identity from the people around us, who instead focused their ire on me.

“The New Republic? What’s your editorial line on Assange then?” snapped an east London girl with a V for Vendetta mask pushed to the top of her head.

Assange continued to speak, fluently, in a voice affectingly weak after his months inside. When he finished, he raised a clenched fist and was gone. The crowd pleaded for an encore. A Spanish-language chant rose: “The people are with you.” But the show was over, the curtains were closed, and the news crews packed up their tripods.

All in all, it had gone as scripted. And, in fact, the people around me seemed straight out of central casting: the protesters with their dreadlocks; the fur-clad West London lady telling Assange’s acolytes, “I don’t think it’s very polite of you to stand on my doorstep”; the greasy-haired roadie in a black t-shirt checking Assange’s microphone. Walking away from the Ecuadorean embassy, past the enormous Harrods department store, I had that uncanny feeling of leaving a matinee, when you suddenly realize you have been inhabiting a different world to the rest of the city.

 

ASSANGE’S SUPPORTERS STILL REFUSE to countenance anything bad about their hero. According to them, anyone who says he is impossible to work with are part of a plot. The women in Sweden who accuse him of sexual assault are CIA provocateurs. And anyone who argues for the Swedish courts’ right to try Assange is an enemy.

But the greatest threat to Assange is himself. He’s in danger of becoming just a character in a reality show, with nothing more to say than any other celebrity turn in the city’s theaters. His turbulent private life has so overshadowed his cause that it is now all but impossible to separate them. Even WikiLeaks is a shell of its former self, as former allies have given up on it and launched their own projects.

After Assange’s appearance, Harding and I bought tea and mince pies in a café on Knightsbridge, where he reminisced about the days when he could pop in on Assange for a chat.

“If Scotland Yard really wanted to drive him out of there, they would just have to turn off the internet. It doesn’t really matter to Julian whether he’s in Iceland or wherever, as long as he’s got the internet,” he said, as he played with a scrap of piecrust.

“I think he’ll be in there for a long time, it could be five years. But the denouement will come when he gets bored. As long as he’s got journalists, anti-capitalists, Angelina Jolie and whoever beating a path to his door, he’ll be all right. The problem is what happens if that stops.”

In other words, how long will it be before editors no longer green-light articles like this one? Will it be Assange’s one-year anniversary at the Ecuadorian Embassy? His two-year anniversary? Eventually, no one but his fiercest supporters will mark these occasions, and Assange himself will have to write a new script if he wants people to keep buying tickets to the show.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 7 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

7 comments

Too funny, let him stay there for the rest of his life. What a shmuck. As to turning off the internet, there is satellite internet, besides it would probably just lead to retaliation and the Brits embassy there would have theirs turned off. Let the loser rot.

- blackton

December 21, 2012 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wikileaks was a scam from the get-go. Assange doled out the data--none of it very compelling, as it turned out--in dribs and drabs, trying to make it seem like he had legions of leakers feeding him a steady stream of secret information, when in reality all he had was one confused, naive, miserable soldier with a low-level clearance. I'd love to know what Assange wrote to Manning to get him to give up the files. Assange deserves jail time for treating another man's future and freedom so lightly and for no reason other than to win fame. Assange strikes me as a likely psychopath.

- AaronW

December 22, 2012 at 4:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Assange's crimes, whatever they be, pale compared to the ones he has exposed. There was a time when the New Republic supported investigative journalism. Now it fears it. Apparently, many "liberals" don't want to know the manifold crimes committed by the Bush and Obama adminstrations. If you want a more intelligent view of Assange, read Glenn Greenwald, who still cares about civil liberties.

- AlanVann

December 22, 2012 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alan, what crimes did Assange expose? Civilian deaths due US fire in Iraq? It is arguable whether or not such killings constitute crimes, but two things are clear: 1) while specific details of the events uncovered by Wikileaks were kept secret, the fact that civilian casualties have been disconcertingly common in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been readily acknowledged by the US military and 2) Assange's data dump has not led to the prosecution or even further investigation of a single potential war crime nor has the infirmation released sparked any serious journalistic investigation into anything other than Assange himself, the kind of attention that one suspects was his driving purpose. Such war crimes as we know about have been uncovered by and prosecuted by the US military itself. The fact is that if there were serious war crimes being covered up by the US Army and Marine Corps, knowledge of them wouldn't have been made available to Bradly Manning nor would documentary proof of such crimes fall into the hands of Wikileaks. Assange is not a journalist at all. He is a grandstanding fool who believes falsely that the mere fact that information has been labeled "secret" renders its revelation valuable. The only value to the Wikileaks leak--singular, Manning's was the only leak there was--was in feeding the pathological narcissism of the organization's founder.

- AaronW

December 22, 2012 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Assange is a self-important twit. WikiLeaks reminds me of those secret code clubs in the Fifties, where children thought they were in on important information that only special people would know. And as AaronW says, what Assange is purveying is yesterday's news. But you can suffer severe consequences when you mock a powerful nation with yesterday's news that is classified. Take the Rosenbergs in the early Fifties. They thought they were stealing critical information about the Bomb, when actually Stalin was way past them and was constructing the Bomb from information he had gotten from communist agents like Klaus Fuchs, who were planted in Los Alamos earlier, during the Manhattan Project. The Rosenbergs paid a much heavier price than Assange has for disseminating out-of-date secrets. But Assange has whined about it much louder than they did. BTW, the execution of the Rosenbergs--in the early Fifties-- was the first political material that interested me. And today I think it was completely unwarranted, since I now know that their "secrets" weren't worth anything. But McCarthyism was rampant in the early Fifties, and they were doomed. The disappearance of McCarthyism has saved the lives of more than one convicted spy in America.

- magboy47.

December 23, 2012 at 3:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There have been two major consequences of Assange's activities: People who aided US intelligence have been exposed to retribution by terrorists; and given the volumn of data exposed without revealing any serious misconduct by our intelligence community, it can be fairly stated that the kind of shenanigans the CIA was infamous for in the past have been eliminated from current operations.

- Robert Powell

December 23, 2012 at 5:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd add that one aspect of the Wikileaks case is that there would be much fewer leaks if the clearance and access system hadn't been so skewed in recent years toward the military that one low-clearance enlisted soldier could download an archive's worth of State Dept material. I know there are some good reasons, especially in an environment like Afghanistan, to have a wide range of intel available to the forces on the ground, but the current (?) situation is ridiculous and gives foreign countries and potential sources the (quite well-founded) idea that the US can't be trusted to keep a secret, even one that someone's life might depend on.

- ironyroad

December 25, 2012 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close