It seems to be a recurring theme when politics and rape allegations mix: women’s bodies become the battlefield where access to justice is secondary, a mere afterthought or a nuisance. Julian Assange, currently locked in an embassy in London, was granted asylum in Ecuador while his alleged victims in Sweden are denied their day in court because “more important matters” take precedent in a political game eerily similar to the situation with Roman Polanski’s extradition request. Both cases, while differing in circumstance and details, share a commonality based on rape culture values. The bodies of raped victims are not treated as valuable as the political circumstances that surround their cases.
This past week Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa made statements that were featured prominently in Spanish language media. Journalists from all over South and Central America asked the President for the reasons behind Assange’s asylum and his response was that Ecuador did not want to interfere with the investigation of possible sexual crimes. According to Correa, he wanted a reassurance that, during this investigation, Assange would not be extradited to a third country. Since they never received such reassurance, Ecuador believed it was important to give priority to Assange’s safety. President Correa then added that he believes Assange could very well be guilty of sexual misconduct and that not everything Assange does is for freedom of expression. Correa said “He could have very well committed sex crimes, however, we want due process for his alleged misconduct”.
For Ecuador, Julian Assange is no mere diplomatic fuss with the United Kingdom, he is part of a wider political struggle that started months ago when the Wikileaks founder handed President Correa the secret memos and correspondence between the US Ambassador and Washington.
In Ecuador, Rafael Correa expelled US Ambassador Heather Hodges after the press reported on a secret cable revoking the US visa of former National Police chief Jaime Aquilino Hurtado, who had “used his office…to extort cash and property, misappropriate public funds, facilitate human trafficking, and obstruct the investigation and prosecution of corrupt colleagues.” Some embassy officers, according to the cable, “believe that President Correa must have been aware” of Aquilino Hurtado’s corruption, but appointed him anyway because he wanted a National Police chief “whom he could easily manipulate.”
Since the Wikileaks memos were revealed, diplomatic tension between the US and the rest of Latin America has somewhat escalated. The memos showed a political style reminiscent of the days in the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s, when the US supported, encouraged and even sponsored brutal military regimes in the continent, interfering with local politics and pushing for an agenda of what, at the time, was dubbed US Imperialist interventions. With the gradual shift to more leftist governments in the region, such interventions have become more difficult for the US, however, the rhetoric and intentional interference in South American politics that were revealed in the Wikileaks cables were met with swift protests from regional leaders. Rafeal Correa’s support of Assange can only be fully understood in the context of this resistance to US intervention.
Some US media are currently painting a very biased picture of this regional solidarity, jumping at the chance to discredit South American presidents as mere demagogues or prone to “theatrics”, while the continent offers wide and unrestrictive support to President Correa’s decision to grant asylum:
By a vote of 23-3, the countries of ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) and most of Latin America voted to convene a meeting of the OAS (Organization of American States) this Friday to discuss the diplomatic impasse between Ecuador and the UK. The United States, Canada and Trinidad and Tobago were the only countries to vote against Ecuador’s proposal to involve the OAS, arguing that the matter should be settled bilaterally.
The OAS meet will be the first big test of ALBA’s mettle and diplomatic savvy since the Honduran coup crisis, when the leftist bloc was exposed as mostly emotional, incoherent and ineffective at conducting foreign policy.
This US-held stance of Latin American countries as “incoherent and ineffective” is at the very core of Assange’s asylum case. Rafael Correa’s involvement and support of Assange is also a demonstration of political will towards the United States and Europe. That Correa even stated his doubts about Assange’s innocence only re-enforces the fact that Ecuador is using Assange as a political pawn in a larger dispute.
Meanwhile, in Sweden, two women who claim they were raped by Julian Assange await their opportunity to confront their alleged rapist. Once again, rape becomes a political tool and women’s bodies are used as the battlefield where political maneuvers are enacted for male politicians, leaders and journalists to further their agendas. This is the stuff that rape culture is made of. Women’s bodies are used during wars and political struggles to make a point; access to justice is denied because confronting ideologies push for each side to “win”. In the end, however, no matter from which side, they both share the same disdain and contempt for women’s bodies. Rape culture is so pervasive that regardless of the political ideologies, it is ever present. Assange is granted asylum, Latin American leaders join to stand against the US and the UK, Assange fans and journalists of all nationalities discuss the controversies but women the world over are given again and again the same message: rape is inconsequential when men need to settle their disagreements
Here’s my perspective: I don’t trust the court system to be just in this case. In my home community, an activist against police misconduct was falsely accused of rape and almost had to serve hard time. If there wasn’t a lot of local fundraising and pushback he would have gone to prison.
I see no good solution to this situation. The Hegemony has basically gotten what it wants anyway: the debate is now about Assange, not Wikileaks & I think Wikileaks has basically been shut down. I’ve neither argued he should be punished for being a threat to USA and I haven’t donated to wikileaks or his defense. But the amount of government money and effort that has been spent on this smells, to me, of oppurtunism.
You should check your facts. In the case of these specific women, it’s known that they were happily hanging out with Assange and telling their friends that they had sex with him. That is strange behavior for rape victims, to say the least.
Julie, with that attitude, any man who is being persecuted by a powerful government could commit rape and get away with it. If the default attitude in activist communities is that every rape allegation is persecution for activism, then every man in any given activist community has been given carte blanche by his community to commit rape. I’ve seen this actually happen over and over again in animal rights, primitivism, anti-police brutality, etc. movements, and it’s why I’m no longer an activist; there’s no respect or regard for the women in many of these movements, especially considering that the women Assange is accused of raping are very well-regarded activists in their communities and have the support of many men in their activist communities. You can’t build a constructive movement while hurting and discrediting half of your movement’s members (or more than half, if you look at the numbers in which women are active).
Also, this whole debacle points to another reason why lack of female leadership in activist circles (and of course everywhere else) is a huge problem.
Answering Caterpillar: As I wrote, I see no good solution to this situation. In THIS case, I don’t trust the courts. There are many people who refer to “the injustice system”. To the extent that the system “works”, it’s because it’s in the best interest of the ruling classes for police & courts to be perceived as “fair”. I think the system works best for the middle & upper classes, and where the case doesn’t inpact on the agendas of local government. Police and courts are notoriously bad on poor people and dissidents, as a matter of social control.
I do not believe rape should not be prosecuted, but in the case of Asange, I don’t trust the courts. I could give a lot of examples of not trusting the courts, but to refer to the activist in my first comment, the police didn’t even collect any physical evidence (they didn’t collect finger prints at the woman’s apartment where he allegedly entered without permission and raped her).
It’s not correct to say that if I dissagree with pursuing the Asange rape charge I have an “attitude” that “man who is being persecuted by a powerful government could commit rape and get away with it”.
Rather my attitude is that “I don’t automatically believe all charges of rape should be prosecuted because some rape prosecutions are false and are done for political reasons; I know because it happened in my own town.”