Friends,

We hope you are well. In today's G|O Briefing:

Assange Supporters Bring Battle to Halt Extradition to Geneva

By Stephanie Nebehay

Julian Assange, the jailed controversial founder of WikiLeaks who is fighting extradition to the United States to face espionage charges, may have his “final” hearing in a British court next week after 13 years of “political persecution,” campaigners said in Geneva this week. Supporters argued that Assange is a defender of press freedoms who should not be extradited to America, where he could face 175 years in prison if convicted on all 18 counts in the US indictment. 

But the current head of WikiLeaks was pessimistic about the prospects of London’s High Court, which convenes February 20-21, overturning a court decision in June 2023 which refused Assange permission to appeal. “It is the last stand, the pivotal point in our case to fight for Julian Assange’s freedom,” Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks since 2018, told a news conference at the Swiss Press Club on Wednesday.

The eleventh-hour campaign to halt extradition had left Assange’s lawyer wife Stella, the mother of his two younger sons, “exhausted and ill” and unable to attend the Geneva event, according to Hrafnsson, who last visited Assange two months ago.

“I am not too optimistic about the outcome that these two judges will disagree [with] and overturn [the previous decision]. I think it very unlikely we see that scenario,” Hrafnsson said. “One possibility after the two-day hearing is that the two judges come back and say there is no case to be had, there is an airplane waiting, he will be flown over [to America]. That is a scenario that [could realistically happen],” he said. 

But Hrafnsson and Denis Masmejan, Secretary General of the Swiss section of Reporters Without Borders (RSF), said that if Assange loses in Britain’s High Court, a last-minute appeal to stay the extradition would be filed at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

 “Kicking the Hornets’ Nest”

 To his fans, Assange is a journalist whose “political persecution” should serve as a warning about shrinking freedom of the press. “Once you kick the hornets’ nest they will attack you. Julian said they will hunt me to the end of the earth, and they have, and they are still at,” said Hrafnsson. 

Critics say Assange may have endangered lives through releasing confidential documents, although Hrafnsson told The Geneva Observer that “there is no example” of anyone having been compromised or losing their life, and that Assange had taken great care to redact or withhold sensitive documents.

Controversy still surrounds the 2016 leaks of emails during the US presidential election campaign which, critics say, played a role in Hillary Clinton’s defeat to Donald Trump. Assange has repeatedly denied the emails came from Russia, but Clinton’s campaign accused him of being Moscow’s “propaganda arm”.

Under the Espionage Act of 1917, the US Department of Justice is seeking Assange’s extradition for having published thousands of classified documents relating to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, including US forces’ killing of civilians.  The Australian publisher and activist, now 52, denies any wrongdoing, and has spent more than a dozen years evading justice.

Assange first took refuge in Ecuador’s embassy in London in 2012, a fugitive breaching hefty bail provided by supporters to avoid charges of sexual assault filed by two women in Sweden. Ecuador granted him asylum, but revoked it after seven years, allowing British police to arrest him.

Assange was taken to Belmarsh, a maximum-security prison outside London, nearly 5 years ago. Nils Melzer, the then UN torture investigator who visited him at Belmarsh in May 2019 along with two medical experts, said he was suffering “psychological torture,” including extreme stress and anxiety.

Melzer’s successor in the independent post, Alice Jill Edwards, last week called on the British government to halt the possible “imminent extradition,” saying that Assange would be at risk of US prison conditions tantamount to torture and of suicide given his “longstanding and recurrent depressive disorder.” 

As early as 2016, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion that depriving Assange of his liberty was unlawful. Amnesty International has taken up his case, warning this week that he faces “serious human rights violations” if extradited, which could have a “profound chilling effect on global media freedom.”

War Crimes 

Assange came to the world’s attention in 2010 when a classified US military video showing a July 2007 attack by Apache helicopters that killed a dozen people in Baghdad—including a Reuters photographer and his assistant—was released by WikiLeaks. The leaked video, dubbed “Collateral Murder,” obtained from a US military whistleblower in Iraq later identified as Chelsea Manning, revealed that there had been no firefight with insurgents, as claimed by US officials, sparking global outrage.

“There is this famous video showing a US helicopter machine-gunning down civilians, it is unbearable and it is [a] flagrant war crime. Here in Geneva, the birthplace of the Geneva Conventions, we can only be scandalized,” Secretary General Masmejan said. “The reasons we are defending [Assange] are the very important contribution[s] he has made to very important journalistic work. Julian helped reveal facts to the public, he served public interest, he served the public right to know what must be known,” he stated. 

Manning’s 35-year sentence was commuted by former US President Barack Obama after she had served 7 years in a maximum-security prison.

“The release of helicopter video on April 5, 2010, turned a page, it put Julian in the limelight, showed the assassination of innocent people on the streets of Baghdad in July 2007, showed the assassination of one [of the] most brilliant photojournalists working for Reuters, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his assistant,” Hrafnsson said.

In 2010, WikiLeaks and media partners released a quarter of a million diplomatic cables sent by US embassies, revealing corruption and other misdeeds and fueling investigations. “It exposed the underbelly of the empire in diplomatic terms,” said Hrafnsson, an award-winning investigative journalist from Iceland. 

Not all have jumped on the Assange bandwagon, however. In an open letter to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk, a former senior staff member, Christophe Peschoux, criticized the office for its silence, writing: “All human rights and press freedom groups consider Mr Assange’s indictment to be the most serious threat worldwide to press freedom in the United States and elsewhere. Our office, however, has remained conspicuously silent. How is it that sucessive high commissioners have carefully ignored him and have not dared to say a word in his defence?” 

“Denouncing the truth must not become a crime,” concluded Peschoux, who recently retired.

In a written response to our request for comment, the UN Human Rights Office told The G|O: "We continue to follow Julian Assange’s case closely and are, of course, aware of the upcoming hearing. As you might recall, former High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet, in August 2022, met Mr. Assange’s wife and legal team, at which time she expressed continuing concerns for his physical and mental well-being in detention. She noted that his potential extradition and prosecution raised concerns relating to media freedom and a possible chilling effect on investigative journalism and on the activities of whistle-blowers. She emphasised the importance of ensuring respect of Mr. Assange’s human rights, in particular the right to a fair trial and due process guarantees."

-SN

If a Mother Can Be Found Complicit in Murders Committed by Her Son, Shouldn’t States Be Held Complicit in Israel’s “Plausible Genocide” in Gaza?

“Am I doing the right thing?” parents ask. They make millions of decisions as they raise their children, with little official guidance. But a recent court decision in Michigan gave a resounding answer to Jennifer Crumbley: The court determined that she was partially responsible for her 15-year-old son Ethan’s murderous rampage, finding her guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter.

The court judged the mother accountable, although she did not pull the trigger on the 9mm semi-automatic pistol her son used to murder four students and wound seven other people at a local high school. As the Gazan death toll approaches 30,000, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly announces he is preparing to bomb Rafah, it is fair to ask if the countries continuing to arm Israel are all Jennifer Crumbleys—on a much larger scale.

What had Mrs. Crumbley done or not done? The parents had bought the weapon for Ethan, and had taken the 15-year-old boy to a firing range. They had ignored strong signals that their son was potentially dangerous. The day of the school shooting itself, they had been called to the school after a teacher had found a violent drawing and message on Ethan’s desk. The involuntary manslaughter charges, however, were based specifically on the mother’s failure to secure the gun Ethan used.

What makes the Michigan case so intriguing and the reason it leads to the analogy with countries that have massively armed Israel over the years, is the relationship between the final act by the son and the parents’ actions prior to the shootings. German jurist Hans Kelsen, one of the greatest legal minds of the last century, examined the relationship between the consequences of an act and what preceded the act by imputation. In this case, the boy’s act resulted in the death of four people and the injury of seven more. Kelsen’s argument was that imputation is beyond simple cause and effect; imputation seeks to determine the responsibility for how the actor came to commit the act. While the mother did not commit the murders, she was determined to be partially responsible: there were enough indications in her son’s behaviour for her to try to prevent his murderous act. 

Can we apply the idea of indirect parental responsibility for the actions of a child to states’ indirect responsibility in providing weapons to Israel as it commits what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has officially ruled “plausible” genocide? Can we impute responsibility for the 28,000 Gazan deaths to those countries which have supplied military material to Israel? If Mrs. Crumbley was guilty of not securing her son’s gun, what about those countries that have failed to control the use of the weapons sold to Israel?

The notion of responsibility is never simple. The International Law Commission (ILC) spent decades considering Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts between 1955 and 2001, and no binding conventions or treaties resulted from the proposed articles. However, Article III of the Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states clearly that: “The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.”

What does complicity mean for the United States and other countries that have armed Israel? Writing recently in The Conversation, three Canadian scholars pondered the implications for their country of the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion about “plausible genocide” committed by Israel:

“In 2022, Canada sent more than $21 million worth of military exports to Israel. The Export and Import Permits Act forbids arms permits to be issued if there’s a “substantial risk” that the goods could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law. Because the ICJ found a serious risk of genocide in Gaza, continuing to export arms to Israel would be illegal. It would also be flagrantly inconsistent with Canada’s obligation to prevent genocide and could expose Canada and Canadian officials to liability for participation in genocide.”

How has the US implemented the Genocide Convention? “The United States has briefed Israel on a new US national security memorandum that reminds countries receiving US weapons to stick to international law,” the White House said on February 10. Washington gives Israel $3.8 billion annually in military assistance. By continuing to give military aid with full knowledge of Israel’s behavior, isn’t the United States complicit in what is currently happening in Gaza? It can hardly plead ignorance as Ethan’s mother did: Israel’s blatant attacks have gone on for four months. There is a growing consensus among scholars that the international community has failed to uphold the prevention clause of the Genocide Convention.

It is unusual for a mother to be judged legally responsible for the actions of her child. It is even rarer for a state to be judged responsible for not preventing genocide. Since the court found Mrs. Crumbley guilty of not securing the gun her son used, is there hope that Israel’s military suppliers might face consequences for not securing the use of their significant delivery of weapons? 

There may be. Middle East Eye reports that “Nicaragua has warned Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada that it will take the countries to the International Court of Justice over allegations that weapons they are providing Israel are being used in a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza,” while a Dutch appeals court recently ruled that the government must halt all sales of F-35 jet parts to Israel. “It is undeniable that there is a clear risk that the exported F-35 parts are used in serious violations of international humanitarian law,” the judge said in his decision.

States, like people, should be held responsible. Preventing genocide is just as important as punishing genocide. Just ask the 28,000 Gazans and counting.

-DW

Israel-Hamas War May Delay Resolution of UN Budget Crisis, Experts Say.

“Senior UN officials are very pessimistic about persuading the US to catch up on its dues,” Richard Gowan, the UN Director at International Crisis Group, has told The G|O. “They understand that the UN is in the doghouse in Washington after arguments over Gaza.” Gowan’s analysis confirms what UN watchers here in Geneva have been quietly suggesting: the UN liquidity crisis is not only serious, but is also political in nature.

Senior UN officials, Gowan told The G|O by email, “expect the Biden administration to lag on its UN payments, and worry that a Trump administration would be even more delinquent.”

The organization is facing its worst liquidity crisis in years, a crisis prompted by its two largest contributors—the US and China—being, for different reasons, delinquent on the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars in dues to the UN. Even if the US administration’s arrears are in fact the lowest they have been in four decades, Washington owes about $1.5 billion in administrative and peacekeeping dues. Last April, China’s tab was about $400 million—an amount now reduced by Beijing.

According to Gowan, “China is gaining a reputation for a penny-pinching approach to UN budgets as its assessed contribution increases.”

All 193 members of the UN are required to fund the regular budget of the organization, which includes its peacekeeping operations and other programs. Assessed contributions are calculated using a highly complex formula based on each member’s gross national income and population. Most of the UN specialized agencies are funded by voluntary contributions.

It is also clear that despite the Biden administration’s determination to reengage with the multilateral system, support for the UN has been steadily dwindling in Congress, including among Democrats. “Support [for] the UN has long been a contentious matter in US politics that manifests in delays and withholdings in US assessed contributions to the UN. The level of withholding and [length of] delay also depends on which political parties control the White House and the two houses of Congress,” Eugene Chen, Director of Prevention, Peacebuilding, and Protracted Crises at New York University's Center on International Cooperation, told us by email.

In 2023, the United Nations assessed the United States’ share of the regular budget at 22 percent and its share of the peacekeeping budget at 27 percent. However, Chen explains, “the US Congress has capped Washington’s contribution to the peacekeeping operations at 25%.”

Since the UN maintains that US laws have no bearing on Washington’s financial obligations, it keeps billing the administration for the full amount of its assessed contribution, with arrears accruing over the years. In addition, Chen explains, “there is a mismatch between the UN’s financial year [1 January–31 December for the regular budget] and the US fiscal year [1 October to 30 September].” The US usually pays its contributions for each UN financial year using funds from the following US fiscal year (e.g., paying 2024 UN dues using US FY2025 funds). And on a political level, the NYU expert points out that “the US Congress has a history of passing legislation withholding funding for specific activities in the regular budget, such as for programs related to Palestine, and Congressional holds placed by individual members of Congress during the appropriations process for policy reasons.”

The US remains, however, the UN’s largest contributor, with assessed and voluntary contribution totaling more than $18 billion. This is about eight times as much as China, the world’s second largest economy.

Meanwhile, the belt-tightening is in full swing everywhere. The latest memo, sent on February 6 by Antonio Guterres’ Chief of Staff, concerns New York, and provides some additional details about the measures implemented. The financial trim is a wide-ranging one, from access to the UN complex and the building's operations, to meetings and side events, interpretation services, documentation, coverage of meetings by UN TV, and the UN Digital Library and Research Resources. The list, writes the Secretary-General’s Chief of Staff, is not “exhaustive.” It only “highlights” those measures that may have a potential impact on the support provided to Member States and on the “intergovernmental deliberations of the Organization across all duty stations.”

“The relevant UN Offices at Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi,” the note adds, will communicate further regarding the implementation of any measures impacting the organization’s support to Member States.

“Our Office is currently analyzing the options for possible cost-reduction measures, which, when decided, will be shared with all stakeholders,” UN Geneva spokesperson Alessandra Vellucci told The G|O by email.

-PHM, with JC

FIFDH: The anti-TikTok Festival

There was no doubt this morning that the new team at the helm of the Geneva International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights (FIFDH) had seized the moment as they lifted the veil on the program of its 22^nd edition. 

“How to make sense of our times in a world marked by the interdependence of geopolitical, economic and social crises, the weakening of multilateral institutions and the climate crisis?” questioned Laila Alonso Huarte and Laura Longobardi. As editorial co-directors of a human rights festival, their answer was: “Use the power of images, their roles, and their representations to probe these changes, and bring together those who reflect on collective solutions and remind us of the need to act.” Among the guests this year and taking part in the forum’s debates* are Nobel Peace Prize Winner Dmitry Muratov, Indian economist Jayati Ghosh, American activist Angela Davis, critical theorist Bernard Harcourt, and French philosopher Corine Pelluchon.

Accueil FIFDH - Festival - FIFDH

Le programme 2024 du FIFDH est en ligne ! Découvrez les 41 films, 24 forums et 23 événements qui constituent cette 22e édition, qui aura lieu du 8 au 17

FIFDH

Russia and the Middle East will figure prominently in the program, through the screening of both fiction films and documentaries, but from post-colonialism to ecocide, our coexistence with other living species, technology, and the rise of the BRICS and the Global South, this edition will also explore emerging themes and issues in depth, making FIFDH the anti-TikTok festival. Between “resistance and revolt,” in the words of its organizers, the festival will again offer us a lesson in courage and a call to action from artists, human rights defenders, activists, public intellectuals and academics.

*Full disclosure:

The G|O is a media partner of the FIFDH. Starting next week, we will be offering free special coverage of the event. We are also producing three of the Forum’s panels, on March 9, 12, and 17. Stay tuned.

Today's Briefing: Philippe Mottaz - Jamil Chade - Stephanie Nebehay - Daniel Warner

Editorial assistance: David Jenny

Edited by: Dan Wheeler

©The Geneva Observer 2024 - All rights reserved -