If there is no difference between how democratic and Oligarchy Authoritarian political leaders think and behave, then, what does Western Democracy really stand for in the global political world? Why should the rest of the world listen to Western Democracy? Is Western Democracy really democratic? Is human rights really practiced in Western Democracy? These questions are being raised, because, what is preached in Western Democracy does not seem to tally with what is being practiced in the issues of Wikileaks and Jean Assange. Wikileaks and Jean Assange deserve a better democratic treatment than the ones they are getting now.

1. Wikileak’s Prosecution or Persecution: Is this Western Democracy?
Lone Voices in Democratic Political Wilderness
According to BBC News dated 10th December 2010, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio
Lula da Silva and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are the only two heads of states that
have questioned or criticised Mr Assange's arrest. There are no other democratic voices
from any other head of states. The democratic world seems to have become an arid
democratic desert, with only two lone voices questioning about freedom of expression and
democracy. If there was ever a democratic silence that can be felt, it is now, on the issue of
Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange. This is no ordinary political silence. It is the silence
of Western Democracy that has been hurt by the exposure of what President Luiz Inacio
Lula da Silva calls “… a diplomacy that appeared untouchable.”
What Are Wikileaks Claims?
In exposing the diplomacy that appeared untouchable, what are Wikileaks motives
and objectives for doing so? In Wikileaks main page it is stated that “WikiLeaks is a non-
profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the
public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources
around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical,
political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous,
thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.” It is
clear that Wikileaks:
1. Considers itself as a non-profit media organization that is a journalistic tool,
2. Is dedicated in bringing important news and information to the public,
3. Publishes material of ethical, political and historical significance,
4. Provides a universal way for revealing suppressed and censored justice.
In short, Wikileaks claims itself to be a non-profit organization that is a journalistic tool
that serves the public in news and information for the purpose of justice. Wikileaks serves
the public and justice. Let’s now see, what are America’s claims?
What Are America’s Claims?
According to BBC news dated 29th November 2010, we can understand that:
1. The leaked diplomatic cables are from 1966 to 2010 and are “… a huge sampling of
communications between the US State Department and its embassies and
consulates around the world.”
2. According Mrs. Clinton, the leaked diplomatic cables are “candid and sometimes
unflattering views of world leaders and frank assessments of security threats.”

2. 3. According to Mrs. Clinton, “diplomats often needed confidentiality to be effective.”
4. The exposure of the diplomatic cables are "… not just an attack on America's foreign
policy interests, she said. It is an attack on the international community: the alliances
and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security
and advance economic prosperity.”
In short, America claims that the leaked diplomatic cables are private diplomatic
messages, which are candid and frank assessments of world leaders and security
threats. Its leak is against America’s foreign policy and international community. So,
Wikileaks and America have their own different views about the same information. But
the questions are: 1) whether the public has the right of access to what is considered
privileged and private diplomatic messages? 2) Whether Wikileaks has committed an
illegal or criminal act in publishing the received leaked diplomatic cables for the peoples’
knowledge? Who will decide?
Are Wikileaks And Jean Assange Being Prosecuted Or Persecuted?
Even before the question of who will decide on the above two questions, we now
have deal with another unpleasant question. Are Wikileaks and Jean Assange being
prosecuted or persecuted? Why is this question being asked? Legally, America has its rights
to pursue a legal course of action through an open court and judiciary processes. If it does
that without resorting to any draconian laws or instruments, then, it can at least say that it
is following its famous American justice system. But before that can happen, we are
witnessing some very unpleasant demonizing propagandas, labeling and heavy handed
bureaucratic maneuvers which are normally practiced by dictatorships and authoritarian
oligarchies.
The Telegraph, in its article dated Monday 13 December 2010, has a picture of a
mean looking Sarah Palin who was quoted as saying “The founder of WikiLeaks should be
hunted down just like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders…” Now, we all know that America has
labelled al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders as terrorist. Thus, Sarah Palin is labelling Jean Assange
as a terrorist, who should share their same fates. No matter what her political status in
America, it does not give her the right to label another nationality and person as a terrorist
especially when nothing has been proven. I am surprised, that the Australians have not
protested vigorously against Sarah Palin’s political labeling and demonizing of one of their
country man. Hey mates! Where are your Australian honors? Is this how you will let one of
your countrymen to be bullied and demonized? No wonder, the Americans claim that it is
within their diplomatic right to privately, candidly and subjectively label even the heads of
state (former Australian Prime Minister included). Who gave Sarah Palin the right to be
judge, jury and executioner? If Sarah Palin represents America or American justice system,
Jean Assange will definitely not get justice in America. Such political labeling and demonizing
raises the question, whether Wikileaks and Jean Assange are being prosecuted or
persecuted.

3. BBC news on 8th December 2010 reported that, “PayPal has said that its decision to
stop people from using its service to make donations to Wikileaks was made after a letter
from the US government.” In this example, we see how the US government flexed its
political and bureaucratic muscles to coerce and intimidate a commercial firm to toe the
line. Wikileaks or its founder has yet to be found guilty in an American open court according
American justice system. But already, political and bureaucratic coercion has been applied
to persuade entities not to deal with Wikileaks as part of the strategy for political and social
isolation. Is this American justice? Is this American democracy? Usually this kind of political
coercion is found and used in totalitarian, authoritarian or authoritarian oligarchy countries
and systems. It is least expected in an American style democracy. Yet, walla! It is in the
American Democratic show. When political or bureaucratic coercion and intimidation is
used before a just process of judicial examination and judgment, we have to ask whether;
Wikileaks and Jean Assange are being prosecuted or persecuted.
Is This Western Democracy?
If the reactions and responses of America and its leadership in dealing with the
issues of Wikileaks and Jean Assange are similar to those used in totalitarian, authoritarian
or authoritarian oligarchy countries and systems - what has Western Democracy (including
American Democracy) to offer to human rights and to democracy? The treatment of
Wikileaks and Jean Assange raises these questions:
Does Western Democracy really support freedom of media?
Does Western Democracy really consider the voices of the people?
Does Western Democracy endorse political pack of wolf-like behavior?
Does Western Democracy endorse subjective labeling and demonizing an individual
and entity?
Does Western Democracy endorse political persecution?
Does Western Democracy endorse lying to its own people in the name of diplomatic
privileges?
Does Western Democracy political persecute individuals and entities for political
ends?
Is There A Difference between Western Democracy and Totalitarian, Authoritarian or
Authoritarian Oligarchy?
If there is no difference between how democratic and Oligarchy Authoritarian
political leaders think and behave, then, what does Western Democracy really stand for in
the global political world? Why should the rest of the world listen to Western Democracy? Is
Western Democracy really democratic? Is human rights really practiced in Western
Democracy? These questions are being raised, because, what is preached in Western

4. Democracy does not seem to tally with what is being practiced in the issues of Wikileaks and
Jean Assange. Wikileaks and Jean Assange deserve a better democratic treatment than the
ones they are getting now.