I spent the last week at the U.N. in Geneva, trying to ram home some truths about the Julian Assange’s legal case as input to the U.N.’s periodic review (every seven years) of the U.K.’s human rights record in terms of its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I had a very short opportunity to address the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, which is a body of elected experts. 

By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk

In such a short time frame you have to go with just a couple of points. I am open to criticism of my selection, but I maintain that this was much plainer speaking than is generally heard. The reasons for this are interesting.

There are fora like this where registered NGOs can make their point. Human rights is quite an industry in Geneva, where literally hundreds of NGO reps live and roam the U.N. buildings. The favoured NGOs are those with ECOSOC registration status. The delegates of UNESCO status NGOs have blue passes and extremely free access throughout, at any time.

UNESCO status is granted by a committee of member states and is difficult to get. It is therefore unsurprising that a high proportion of NGOs are not real NGOs at all. They are astroturf; fake NGOs paid to whitewash the record of their governments. 

I did not understand this until I attended (as a dry run for the U.K.) the meetings of the Human Rights Committee for the Egyptian periodic review. Several Egyptian NGOs, one after the other, told us what a great respect for human rights the Egyptian dictatorship has. (It has, incidentally, just sentenced another group of opposition figures to death, after murdering Egypt’s only ever freely elected president.)

Even well-known Western NGOs tend to pull their punches at the U.N. because, bluntly, almost all of them receive large amounts of funding from Western governments. 

While theoretically this is funding to attack the human rights record of the Western governments’ designated enemies, it is a concomitant that the NGOs are reluctant seriously to bite the hand that feeds them.

Consider these facts: firstly, no important whistleblower has ever subsequently found employment with an established NGO. A great many have tried.

Secondly, had I not been there, nobody would have mentioned Julian Assange in the periodic review of the U.K.’s human rights record.

Money talks in the U.N. itself too. The U.S. and Western powers contribute a very high proportion of the U.N. budget. There is a reason why, at a commemoration ceremony in Geneva for U.N. staff killed in Gaza that I attended, none of the senior U.N. staff dared to mention who killed them.

Also of course the NATO powers and allies are disproportionately represented in key staff positions.

The U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk, an Austrian, has been disgustingly pusillanimous on Gaza and has done nothing on Assange. I spoke with a member of his staff who regurgitated to me a number of detailed U.S. prosecution talking points on Assange which are simply factually incorrect. They have been thoroughly briefed.

Staff are visibly afraid to take on the U.K./U.S. interest. I met a number of U.N. staff who were happy to chat away until I brought up Assange; then they quite literally physically recoiled, in some cases took an actual step back, and always discovered they had pressing business elsewhere.

After the Human Rights Committee meeting with NGOs, the committee then met with the U.K. government representatives to discuss their concerns. 

One member of the committee, Rodrigo Carazo of Costa Rica, decided he would raise the case of Julian Assange, based on the briefing which we had supplied. A full elected member of the committee, Carazo is also the former Costa Rican ambassador to the United Nations.

Carazo was put on the speakers’ list and he informed the committee what he was going to raise. Come the meeting with the U.K. delegation, Carazo was astonished when the chair simply skipped over him in the speaking list and did not call him. He caught the chair’s eye several times as the meeting progressed but still was not called, then it wound up and the chair went to the U.K. delegation to respond to the bland and generic points which had been raised.

At one point Carazo rose from his seat to remonstrate with her and they had a pretty pointed exchange. 

My conclusion from this is that the U.K. and U.S. are currently very sensitive to international criticism over Assange, and that rather than be discouraged we need to keep pushing. As both the U.S. and U.K. are becoming international pariah states over Gaza, we need to remind the world of their long established crimes.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

This article is from CraigMurray.org.uk.

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/19/craig-murray-assange-truth-un-shenanigans/

The US government is reported to be considering a plea deal offer to Julian Assange, allowing him to admit to a misdemeanor, but his lawyers say they have been “given no indication” Washington intends to change its approach.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that the US justice department was looking at ways to cut short the long London court battle of the WikiLeaks founder against extradition to the US on espionage charges for the publication 14 years ago of thousands of classified US documents related to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/mar/20/julian-assange-wikileaks-plea-deal

THE GUARDIAN IS GUILTY OF HAVING DROPPED JULIAN ASSANGE INTO THE CRAP, AFTER HAVING PUBLISHED THE INFORMATION IN FULL — WHILE ASSANGE HAD REDACTED THE DOCUMENTS....

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.........