Julian Assange’s arrest

THE arrest of Julian Assange by British authorities is deeply troubling.

The WikiLeaks founder has always cut a controversial figure; both he and his organisation have arguably engaged in questionable conduct over the years.

Yet the broader implications for press freedom the world over are sinister.

Only last month, former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, previously imprisoned for downloading US military and diplomatic documents for WikiLeaks in 2010, was again jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury.

Mr Assange now faces the possibility of extradition to the US, where he has been indicted on a conspiracy charge in connection with his interactions with Ms Manning.

The US government’s position with regard to these two individuals, as well as whistleblower Edward Snowden, is indicative of an illiberal attitude towards those demanding greater accountability and transparency of public institutions.

The pioneering work of WikiLeaks has revolutionised public-interest journalism — by using cryptography to link publishers with whistleblowers, it sent shockwaves through the upper echelons of power that continue to reverberate.

The 2010 leaks shed a critical light on US foreign policy, particularly the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

As a co-publisher of the 2010 leaks, this newspaper helped define national discourse on the contentious US drone programme in Pakistan, and enabled a more critical, informed view of the relationship between the two governments.

From uncovering state secrecy over human rights violations and possible war crimes, to exposing the corrupt, tax-dodging practices of the global elite, WikiLeaks and journalists have in recent years set in motion a trailblazing model of investigative reporting, empowering people to question power, and the abuse of it.

Clearly, this is why the US government is so tenaciously pursuing Mr Assange’s prosecution — to protect the mechanisms used by the status quo to maintain itself.

Should the extradition of Mr Assange go through, it would set a terrible precedent, eroding the progress made by press freedom campaigners to democratise access to information and its attendant redistribution of power to the people.

The impact of this, too, would be felt the world over, particularly in countries where a free press is already under assault.