The Right to Extradite

Julian Assange has recently been taken into custody by the British government, after his asylum in the Ecuador embassy has been revoked. While the public may be divided on whether Assange should face extradition, there is one thing that should be noted. Extradition can be abused. Like most of the government's capabilities, it can be utilised as a political tool, whether it is to achieve internal political aims or to fulfil international diplomacy goals. With that in mind, there have been times that the British government has not extradited people, even when it seems obvious that they should.

Well, why do government's extradite?

Nobody is above the law

Many British MPs were quick, with the prime minister to be no exception, to stand by the narrative that nobody is above the law. The context is that Assange currently faces allegations of sexual assault while he was in Sweden. He should face the the Swedish authorities and undergo the proper investigation process.

He should. There is no doubt about that. If he's guilty, he should be punished for it too.

But what about the 5 Rwandan citizens who are suspected to be perpetrators of the mass genocide that occurred in the 90s? They are currently living in the UK, away from the justice that awaits them in the gacaca courts back home in Rwanda. Assange's sexual allegations would give the Wikileaks founder a maximum 5-year sentence. In comparison with a case of ethnic cleansing, it would be easier to argue that the legal and moral magnitude of this issue compels the British government to hand them over to Rwanda as they are willing to with Assange.

Nevertheless, they probably live in more free conditions than Assange has for the past 7 years, being confined to the Ecuadorian embassy the whole time. 4 of the 5 suspects even receive benefits from the British government.

They seem to be above the law.

But what about concerns on a human rights breach?

This was the answer the given when the Supreme Court ruled that the 5 men would not be extradited. They were concerned that the basic rights of these individuals would be breached. This has a lot of implications. Firstly, it ignores the due justice that needs to be delivered in response to one of the largest instances of human rights abuse in history. People were murdered in their homes simply due to their arbitrarily given racial identity. There's a reason why this modern-day genocide has been paralleled with the Holocaust. Perpetrators of the 100-day murder gave no thoughts to the rights they breached, and it would be intuitive for many to simply ignore their rights if it meant the right thing was done. Secondly, it says something about what the Supreme Court thinks about Rwanda's post-conflict reconciliation process. If their concern was that the local tribunals, the gacaca courts, were keen to abuse human rights, why didn't the British government (or any other government for that matter) do anything about the other 1.2 million cases tried by these courts? Given that about a third of post-conflict societies usually submerge into war all over again, and most suffer trying to rebuild their social and justice systems, does it not matter that these local tribunals are essential for the nation to heal?

A pressing concern now would be Julian Assange's rights. It's harder to assume that he would be abused while facing trial by Swedish courts (based on the mostly fair assumption that Western courts are more conscious when it comes to rights and liberties). Nonetheless, it's important to remember them most important of Assange's features, his career. He is a whistleblower. He leaked war logs, campaign emails and information on government spying activities. He also released information about Ecuador's prime minister and his possible connections to offshore accounts (which could have been a factor in his revoked asylum). No government likes a whistleblower, and many governments are keen to get their hands on him. 

Assange is a journalist, essentially. He exposes the truth, especially if it hurts incumbents. His methods and scale of damage are questionable though; he is a different kind of whistleblower. Who knows what could be in store for this vigilante? As a result, it's no wonder that people worry about what could happen to Assange, especially since quite a number of people still think of him as a hero, despite the mass vilification he almost constantly faces. Furthermore, whatever happens to him now will set the tone for future whistleblowers and journalists alike who may begin to limit the extent of the truth they can report on.

Diane Abbott, an MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, thought about this and tried to alert Parliament about the possible abuses of Assange's rights. In return, she was slammed for being an anti-feminist for willing to forgo the justice due for the victims of sexual assault.

What a contrast with the justification they gave when the perpetrators of genocide were protected by British borders.

So, should we not extradite Julian Assange then?

Assange shouldn't be assumed as innocent of the sexual assault accusations (ew what the heck, go get your law education bro, assume innocent until proven guilty??). He must be investigated and tried. Too many men walk free after ruining the lives of countless women. However, Assange's extradition in particular is fishy. He leaked government secrets and the US (especially) wants him punished for it, so it does seem weird that the US knew about his ejection from the embassy before the Swedish authorities.

In spite of everything, the bottom line is that there seems to be a double-standard when it comes to extradition. The lack of consistency when it comes to extradition can lead many to believe that this power has become incredibly politicised. It is not really a legal process anymore, especially with this study on its partiality. This problem isn't restrained to Western borders too. Recently, Hong Kong has announced an extradition deal with China, agreeing to send suspects to the mainland for trial. Given China's colourful human rights records and dodgy criminal justice system, as well as its desire to exert more control over Hong Kong, it seems that politics were a more major consideration in this legal decision.

In fine, more thought needs to be given to the right of governments to extradite, and the reasons they have for doing so. Someone has to make sure that they're doing the right thing.

- Paren










*edits made in italic lol, mistake kept in because you should see how dumb i was