Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Letter to Caroline Kennedy, US Ambassador to Australia

 Ms Caroline Kennedy

United States Ambassador to Australia

US Embassy.

Level 11, MLC Centre

19-29 Martin Place,

Sydney 2000                                                                                      27th July 2022

 

Dear Ambassador

 

Welcome to Australia.

 

In your role as Ambassador it is not appropriate for you to engage in public discussion about political matters, be they Australian or those of the United States. I understand that.

 

In my role as a journalist it is appropriate, however, to advocate on behalf of fellow journalist, Julian Assange - an Australian citizen facing a probable death sentence if he is extradited to the United States. 

 

Mr Assange's crime: Exercising the First Amendment rights that would apply to him if he were a US citizen.

 

On 27th April 1961, your father, John F. Kennedy, expressed the importance of freedom on the press most eloquently. Speaking to the assembled media at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York,  he said:

 

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

 

These words apply in 2022, as much as they did at the height of the Cold War.

 

 

 

 

In reference to the USSR, JFK said:

 

 "Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

 

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your (the 4th Estate's) second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

 

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

 

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

 

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

 

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it."

 

Julian Assange has applied the precepts outlined here by your father, and reiterated by President Biden.

 

Please remind your President, and those in the Biden administration that you serve, of your father's words.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

cc President Joe Biden

Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

Letter to President Joe Biden re Julian Assange

 Mr Joe Biden

President, United States

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington

26th July 2022

 

Dear Mr President

 

"World Press Freedom Day, is a day to recognize the vital importance of journalism to upholding free and open democracies, both here at home and around the world." 

 

These are your own words, Mr Biden, spoken shortly after being elected President in 2020. 

 

You continue:

 

"It’s also a day to honour the journalists who dedicate their lives to advancing media freedom, at times braving immense pressure, sacrificing their livelihood or liberty, or even facing mortal danger to bring the truth to light."

 

In relation to the 25 journalists around the world killed while doing their job in 2019, and the estimated 360 people worldwide imprisoned at the time for their work in journalism, you said:

 

"We all stand in solidarity with these journalists for, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1786, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. A free press is essential to a free society. Tyrants know this all too well. That is why attacking the press and attempting to intimidate independent media is a standard part of the authoritarian playbook."

 

The country you lead is persecuting and prosecuting Julian Assange, an Australian member of the 4th Estate who lives and breathes the values you espouse; a journalist, publisher and father who has not only lost his liberty but will almost certainly lose his life if you do not prevent his extradition to the United States.

 

As President Elect you said of your predecessor, Donald Trump:

 

"Trump deflects legitimate questions with attacks. He bullies and berates individual members of the press, rather than take responsibility for his failures of leadership. His efforts to undermine public confidence in the integrity of fact-based reporting violate our core American values and threaten our very system of government."

 

Julian Assange is a fact-based reporter. Whether, as President, you like or dislike the facts he reports is beside the point if you are to nurture the free society that Thomas Jefferson spoke of in 1786. 

 

Again, I quote your own words:

 

"Journalists hold those in positions of authority accountable, investigate and document abuses of power, and expose the truth for everyone to see. While many presidents have been unhappy with their media coverage, only Donald Trump has attacked the independence of journalists and launched an all-out assault on the media. As President, I will restore a relationship with the independent press that is grounded in mutual respect, even — and especially when — they critique policies or positions of my administration. In a Biden White House, there will be no bullying of the media..."

 

The United States has been bullying Julian Assange for more than a decade now. Please Joe, in the spirit of healing, empathy and truth, remain true to your words and end the bullying, persecution and prosecution of Julian Assange. 


yours sincerely


James Ricketson

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

cc Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Caroline Kennedy, United States Ambassador to Australia

Monday, July 25, 2022

Another letter to PM Albanese and Foreign Minister Wong re Julian Assange

 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Foreign Minister, Penny Wong

22nd July 2022

 

Dear Mr Albanese and Ms Wong

 

                                    re: Julian Assange: 'Enough is enough'

 

Further to my letters of 2nd June, 5th and 14th July, and referencing my 12th July email to the AFP, copied to Attorney General Mark Dreyfus. 

 

Within what time frame might I expect a response to my enquiries? Or is it the intention of your new government to ignore legitimate questions asked by constituents in relation to Julian Assange? I understand that you are now in receipt of hundreds of letters such as mine from concerned voters?

 

President Obrador of Mexico has made public that he has given a letter to US President Joe Biden defending Julian Assange as a man innocent of any serious crime committed in the United States; as having not caused anyone's death or violated anyone's human rights.

 

Have you, Prime Minister, given a similar letter to President Biden? Or articulated comparable sentiments in your meetings with him? If so, could you please make this public, as you have your "raising the case of jailed Australian engineer Robert Pether with the Iraqi leader  Mustafa al-Kadhimi?"

 

Why do you advocate on behalf of Robert Pether and not Julian Assange?

 

Many supporters of Assange cling to the hope that your declaration, Prime Minister, that you "do not see what purpose is served by the ongoing pursuit of Mr Assange", in conjunction with your comments relating to 'quiet diplomacy', will lead to action on your part to secure Assange's release. An increasing number of us, however, are coming to the conclusion that you, Penny Wong and Mark Dreyfus are employing Orwellian doublespeak to create the illusion that your government is being proactive in this matter, when in fact a deal has been done with President Biden that will see Assange in jail for many years to come - in the US and possibly Australia also.

 

If this be the case, Assange will almost certainly die in jail and your government, Prime Minister, will go down in history as one that abandoned, and essentially sentence to death, an Australian citizen whose only crime was to make war crimes truths available to the public that the US wished to remain secret. And which, it seems, your government believes should have remained secret?

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

Thursday, July 14, 2022

Questions for PM Albanese & Foreign Minister Wong re 2010 Red Notice arrest warrant for Julian Assange

 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Foreign Minister, Penny Wong

14th July 2022

 

Dear Mr Albanese and Ms Wong

 

                                    re: Julian Assange: 2010 Red Notice

 

Further to my letters of 2nd June and 5th July, and referencing  my 12th July email to the AFP, copied to Attorney General Mark Dreyfus. (see below)

  

The AFF responded officially to my questions within 24 hours:

 

"No comment"

 

I trust that one of you will respond with similar haste.

 

I appreciate that your government is new, and that you have many urgent matters to deal with, and are addressing many with the haste they deserve - the cessation of the case against Bernard Collaery, for instance. 

 

I hope that similar haste can be given to preventing Julian Assange's extradition to the United States.

 

From the Interpol website:

 

What is a Red Notice?

 

A Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action.

It contains two main types of information:

- Information to identify the wanted person...

- Information related to the crime they are wanted for, which can typically be murder, rape, child abuse or armed robbery.

 

Why was Julian Assange, who had been found guilty of no crime in 2010, issued with the most extreme of all Interpol arrest warrants: Red? 

 

A Red Notice arrest warrant was also in force in 2010 for Joseph Kony, charged with 12 counts of crimes against humanity and 21 counts of war crimes?

 

However, Muammar Gaddafi accused of murder and crimes against humanity was issued with only the second most serious Interpol warrant: Orange?

 

Was the issuance of an Interpol Red Notice arrest warrant an appropriate course of action to take in relation to an Australian citizen who had been found guilty of no crime in 2010?

 

Was the 2010 Red Notice issued for political reasons? If so, was the arrest warrant invalid, from a legal point of view? Surely, in the interests of transparency, shouldn't an independent enquiry be held into the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a Red Notice that implied Assange was as dangerous a criminal as Joseph Kony,  and more so than Muammar Gaddafi?

 

I believe that the growing number of Australians who are waking up to the dire consequences of Assange's extradition - both for him personally, and for freedom of the press - would like to be reassured that the Australian government, in 2010,  played no role in the preparation of the 2010 Red Notice?

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

 

From: James Ricketson, jamesricketson@gmail.com

Subject:  MEDIA REQUEST FOR MARINA SIMONCINI, AFP Manager, Communications. 

Re: WikiLeaks on Twitter: "We applied for Assange's INTERPOL file over a year ago. INTERPOL has, in violation of policy, still not released http://t.co/f47oaZUr" / Twitter

Date: 12th July 2022 11am AEST

To: media@afp.gov.au

 

Dear Marina Simoncini 

 

I understand that media requests in relation to Interpol fall under your remit?

 

On 20th November, 2010, a Red Notice for Julian Assange was issued to law enforcement in all 188 INTERPOL member countries.

 

As you will be aware, a Red Notice must not be published by Interpol if it violates Article 3 of Interpol’s Constitution, which forbids the Organization from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.

 

Given that the issuance of such Red Notices is usually reserved for those alleged to have committed the most heinous of crimes (mass murder, for instance) , I am, in my role as a journalist , trying to find out why such a Notice was issued in relation to Julian Assange who, at the time, had been found guilty of no crime at all, committed anywhere in the world?

 

I am curious to know what role the Australian government of the day, led by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, may have played in either agreeing to abide by the terms of the 2010 Red Notice, or in questioning its validity under Article 3 of Interpol’s Constitution?

 

I refer specifically to the Wikileaks/Assange request for the file on that Interpol Red Notice for Julian Assange. 

 

I wonder if you could confirm one way or the other, if the file was forwarded to Wikileaks? If not, on what basis was it withheld? 

 

Sources within the AFP inform me that various Australian government officials have, over the years, also requested this file; that requests for access to this file have quite recently been made by the Department of the Attorney General.  Is this so?

 

Given the very real possibility that Julian Assange could, in the not-too-distant future, be extradited to the United States, I would appreciate it if you could respond to this letter with as much haste as possible.

 

your sincerely

 

James Ricketson

cc Mark Dreyfus, Attorney General

Tuesday, July 12, 2022

Julian Assange: 2010 Interpol Red Notice. Email to Australian Federal Police, copied to Mark Dreyfus

 From: James Ricketson, jamesricketson@gmail.com

Subject:  MEDIA REQUEST FOR MARINA SIMONCINI, AFP Manager, Communications. 

Re: WikiLeaks on Twitter: "We applied for Assange's INTERPOL file over a year ago. INTERPOL has, in violation of policy, still not released http://t.co/f47oaZUr" / Twitter

Date: 12th July 2022 11am AEST

To: media@afp.gov.au, cc: attorney@ag.gov.au 

 

Dear Marina Simoncini 

 

I understand that media requests in relation to Interpol fall under your remit?

 

On 20th November, 2010, a Red Notice for Julian Assange was issued to law enforcement in all 188 INTERPOL member countries.

 

As you will be aware, a Red Notice must not be published by Interpol if it violates Article 3 of Interpol’s Constitution, which forbids the Organization from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.

 

Given that the issuance of such Red Notices is usually reserved for those alleged to have committed the most heinous of crimes (mass murder, for instance) , I am, in my role as a journalist , trying to find out why such a Notice was issued in relation to Julian Assange who, at the time, had been found guilty of no crime at all, committed anywhere in the world?

 

I am curious to know what role the Australian government of the day, led by then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, may have played in either agreeing to abide by the terms of the 2010 Red Notice, or in questioning its validity under Article 3 of Interpol’s Constitution?

 

I refer specifically to the Wikileaks/Assange request for the file on that Interpol Red Notice for Julian Assange. 

 

I wonder if you could confirm one way or the other, if the file was forwarded to Wikileaks? If not, on what basis was it withheld? 

 

Sources within the AFP inform me that various Australian government officials have, over the years, also requested this file; that requests for access to this file have quite recently been made by the Department of the Attorney General.  Is this so?

 

Given the very real possibility that Julian Assange could, in the not-too-distant future, be extradited to the United States, I would appreciate it if you could respond to this letter with as much haste as possible.

 

your sincerely

 

James Ricketson

cc Mark Dreyfus, Attorney General

Friday, July 8, 2022

Death of an Australian citizen receiving 'Consular Assistance' - Zippy Nicolosi


 

EXTRACT


In the first months following my arrest I was determined NOT to pay even $1 in bribes to secure my release. In 20 + years of visiting Cambodia I had never once paid a bribe, as a matter of principle. I did not intend to start now. I made this clear to police and Ministry of the Interior officials on the day of my arrest and during all of my subsequent interrogations. This decision went hand-in-glove with my belief, for a few months at least, that the relevant highly-placed person within the Australian government would have an off-the-record chat with his or her counterpart in the Cambodian government and that I would soon be released. Despite 20+ years of visiting Cambodia and thinking that I had a reasonably good grasp on how the country functioned, I was still naive enough to believe that the absence of any evidence at all that I was a spy, the overwhelming evidence that I was merely a filmmaker and journalist and the sheer number of Cambodian laws that had been breached in my prosecution, would see me freed soon – if only to prevent loss of face for the police, the prosecutor and an Investigating Judge for my clearly arbitrary arrest and detention. I was wrong. It took me a few months but it soon became apparent that once a prisoner enters Prey Sar prison he is guilty until he has paid whatever sum of money is required to be found either innocent or to have his sentence reduced. Regardless of the crime a prisoner is accused of he must spend a minimum of 6 months in pre-trial detention; 6 months living in a hot and crowded cell eating food that pigs would turn their noses up at, his body ravaged by scabies and a whole host of other skin complaints; catching whatever colds, flus and upper- respiratory illnesses his 140+ cell mates might have. At the end of this 6 months he will do anything to get out of Prey Sar. He will realize by now that his guilt or innocence of the crime he has been arrested for is irrelevant. He will find some way to raise the money to buy his freedom, even if it means his family must sell their home, land and worldly possessions to do so.

 

The completion of my first 6 months in pre-trial detention, in early December 2017, with no trial date in sight and no evidence that the Australian government planned to help me in any way, coincided with the serious illness of a fellow Australian prisoner and friend, Giuseppe (Zippy) Nicolosi.  The questions confronting myself and my family regarding tactics and strategy took on a life-and-death quality when Zippy became seriously ill in late 2017 and he seemed to us, his fellow prisoners and friends, to be in danger of dying. Zippy’s story is worth recounting in a little detail here as his fate mirrored what well could have been my own. It had a profound influence on certain decisions I made which, in turn, impacted on my relationship with members of my family.

 

Zippy was arrested in Cambodia “on suspicion of having sex with a 5 year old in…2010” and sentenced the following year. “The victim retracted her complaint in 2012, following the Siem Reap Provincial Court trial. Nicolosi appealed, claiming he was the victim of a false accusation and police corruption but the Appeal Court upheld the eight year sentence.” Zippy was offered to opportunity pay a relatively small bribe to buy his way out of prison but rejected it on the grounds that he was innocent; that he had been framed by someone who wanted to steal the bar he ran on a popular tourist beach in Sihanoukville. 

As with my own arrest and conviction, no evidence of Zippy’s guilt was ever presented in court. There was, however, a mountain of evidence that he was innocent available to anyone prepared to ask a few questions and prepared to take judgements handed down by the Cambodian judiciary with a grain of salt. And more than a grain of salt is required in the case of a judicial system in which close to 100% of all cases heard in court result in a conviction; a judicial system that ranks as the most corrupt in South East Asia and amongst the top 20 out of 176 countries in the world. 

Amongst those who could ask such questions is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), through the Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh. DFAT refuses to do so as a matter of principle. (I had learned this well before Zippy became ill. The Australian Embassy, and hence DFAT, knew within a couple of days of my arrest that the charge of espionage laid against me was nonsense but had done nothing by late 2017 to support me; to defend my legal and human rights; not even when my name and face were used, in abrogation of Cambodian law,  in government TV propaganda, implicating me in a conspiracy, along with the United States and the Cambodian National Rescue Party, to foment a ‘colour revolution’ in Cambodia.)

After his arrest and subsequent conviction Zippy believed, if he followed DFAT’s advice and maintained a low media profile, that his chances of release were greater than if his case acquired a high profile and thus had the potential to cause loss of face to the police, prosecutor, Investigating Judges and Court Judges who had convicted him on the basis of zero evidence of his guilt.

Understandably, the Australian media pretty much ignored Zippy’s case, as it has those of other Australian prisoners in Prey Sar and other Cambodian prisons.

Even if there had been evidence of Zippy’s guilt he was in the final months of his 8 year sentence when he became very ill in late 2017.  Some of Zippy’s many symptoms (one of which was extreme weight loss) were consistent with his having contracted pneumonia. He had numerous other medical problems that were visible to his fellow prisoners but which remained undiagnosed. Included were bulbous outgrowths on his chest close to the size of golf balls. His health deteriorated rapidly over a period of a few months and a few inmates, myself included, alerted the Australian Embassy and the Prime Minister’s office to the seriousness of Zippy’s medical condition and the need for medical intervention on the part of the Australian government. 

On 14th August 2017 an email was sent to the Australian Embassy:

“Just to let you know that Giuseppe is in a lot of pain. He has a chest problem that is making it hard to breath. He is clearly very uncomfortable. I know you are organising a doctor visit for him. Sooner rather than later I think. James is getting a lot of skin problems. He's covered in sores and now a boil. Also he has septic infections on his feet. Perhaps time for him to see a doctor also.” 

(NOTE: At no stage did I ever receive treatment for my ailments)

On 21st August another email was sent to the Australian Embassy:

“Please note that Giuseppe is becoming very sick. He should be in the hospital now. Please take timely steps to see him accordingly. Thank you”.

The following day another email was sent:

“Giuseppe is in severe pain. He is deteriorating. You can see his face is grey this morning. He does not waste your time as you well know. This appears seriousPlease take steps to assist your citizen without delay.”

The same day, 22nd August, the following was received from the Australian Embassy:

“As I’m sure you’re aware, embassies don’t provide medical care, and as such if any prisoner has an urgent medical issue they need to speak with the prison doctor. Any arrangements we make for external treatment of an Australian detainee takes time and isn’t an appropriate response to an urgent issue.”


4th September email to the Australian Embassy re Zippy:

 “Please note he is becoming a little mentally fragile particularly as a result of his deteriorating medical condition. If you can assist in any way this is an opportune moment I suggest.”

2nd Dec:

“He's suffering badly from malnutrition and weight loss including dehydration. The cystic fibrosis is abundantly obvious and pervasive to me and he has an outstanding lung infection issue still pending. He's clearly not fit for punishment. I'm absolutely sure that the Cambodian authorities will have no problems releasing Guiseppe into proper Australian medical care on humanitarian grounds., I know he was just visited by the embassy a couple of days ago.  You have to take action to help this man. We are doing what we can here but he needs proper medical care now if he is to stand a chance at any valuable recovery. I hope you take steps quickly to assist him”.


 From the Australian Embassy on 4th Dec:

“While we share your desire to see Giuseppe recover quickly, the Australian Government does not pay medical costs for Australians overseas, inclusive of prisoners. The local options as provided by the Cambodian prison system are the only option available, and we will be working with officials to get the best outcomes from that system.”

4th Dec. To the Australian Embassy.

“Guiseppe is very ill. He needs medical treatment beyond that being afforded to him. He actually should be in an Australian hospital as he's not fit for punishment as is abundantly obvious. May I suggest you write to seek his repatriation on humanitarian grounds.  Provide me with the costs and I will try and organise funds if Australia is too poor or too inconsiderate of its own citizens. I am appalled as I am sure the family and friends are. This is not the Australia I know. It does however unfortunately look like the UK care package.  He will die soon if you don't take steps now. Does that sit well with you? I can't believe it does.”


5th Dec. Email from Australian Embassy:

“Giuseppe was moved back to the hospital at the end of last week, and I will be visiting him today. As I’m sure you are aware, the Australian Government, much like your own government, does not cover medical costs for citizens overseas. We are in discussions with Giuseppe’s family seeking a commitment to cover costs. If you feel you are able to assist with these costs, please let me know.”

Zippy was transferred to what is known as the “Russian Hospital” and placed on an intravenous drip. He had no money, however, to pay for nutrients to be added to the drip and died a few days later, on 10th. Dec, from a combination of malnutrition and medical conditions that were not addressed by the Prey Sar prison hospital or the Russian hospital.

To Australian Embassy on 12th Dec:


“We are all appalled at his passing and how badly he was cared for. Offers were there for weeks if not months. Everyone is very sad at his passing and the wasted opportunity to help him. I sincerely hope that the Australian embassy and government takes a serious look in the mirror and asks themselves if they genuinely provided reasonable care for this man.”

Zippy’s death changed everything for me. If my government could allow an (almost certainly) innocent Australian citizen to die from malnutrition and medical neglect, with no attempt at intervention, would it do anything to prevent me from dying under similar circumstances? 

Our government justifies its lack of protection of the human and legal rights of Australian citizens such as Zippy with the following, to be found in the Consular Services Charter:

There are a range of tasks which are outside the consular role or which we do not provide for policy reasons. These include: intervene in another country’s court proceedings or legal matters.

This is not true, of course. The Australian government did intervene in my case more than once – the second time to secure my King’s Pardon release, though it would not be until I had been back in Australia for a few weeks that I would become aware of this.

The Consular Services Charter also states that the Embassy may:

Do what we can to see you are treated fairly under the laws of the country in which you have been arrested.

At no stage, despite multiple requests from me over a period of 6 months in 2017, did the Australian Embassy make any attempt to see to it that I was treated fairly. When I pointed out the many ways in which I was not being treated fairly, as I did on several occasions, the many Cambodian laws that were being abrogated in my case, the Embassy, DFAT, Bishop and Turnbull ignored my correspondence. In December 2017, at the time of Zippy’s death, I was in possession of no evidence at all that the Australian government was doing or would do anything to help me or, to be a little more blunt, that it would do anything to prevent me from dying as Zippy did if I were to become seriously ill. And seriously ill I did become in April 2018.

Virtually no-one in Australia has heard of Guiseppe Nicolosi. No-one, other than his family, mourned his untimely and preventable death or wondered aloud, in the public domain, why it was that the Australian government allowed him to die as he did. Zippy did not court the media as I began to do in Dec 2017, when it became apparent that the Australian government was doing nothing to help me. Or, to be more precise, the government gave no indication that it was doing anything to help me. 

Zippy did not have contacts in the media to be courted, as I did.  He had no celebrity friends, as I did. He did not have the writing skills I possess, making it possible for me to ‘harass’  Turnbull, Bishop and Corcoran in an ‘avalanche’ of letters and thus place pressure on the Australian government to intervene in my case. Nor did Zippy have the temerity or the courage (for lack of a better word) to challenge the Cambodian judiciary as I did. In short, Zippy was just the sort of compliant Australian citizen prepared to rely on possible behind the scenes diplomacy in his quest for justice, whose legal and human rights the Australian government could safely ignore. Out of sight; out of mind! There are other Australians  in Prey Sar, as innocent as Zippy and myself,  whom the Australian public will probably never hear of until they die; their death is afforded one paragraph in newspapers. I know of three such Australians in Cambodian jails and I read of one a few days ago that I do not know. Gary Knowles, aged 73. Since his arrest in Dec 2017, the same month that Zippy died, Mr Knowles has, according to the Canberra Times “vanished from public view.” Neither he nor his family want publicity. Is this because they have been so advised by DFAT as Zippy and I were? Because he hopes that quiet behind-the-scenes diplomacy will result in his release from jail? If Mr Knowles does die in a Cambodian jail will his passing receive the same publicity as Zippy’s? Close to zero?

In Feb 2018 news of my extreme weight loss and ill health, 68,000 signatories on a change.org petition, and stories in the media began to attract the attention of the Australian public. It became difficult for the Turnbull govt not to do something to help extricate a clearly innocent Australian citizen from Prey Sar, charged with an offence - espionage - that was self-evidently nonsense! Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced she was intervening in my case. At least this is how the media reported it. She had written to her Cambodian counterpart re my case, her office informed the media. Good news. Both I and my family were able to breathe a sigh of relief. After 10 months the Australian government was finally doing something to help me! 

 

When Cambodian Ministry of the Interior officials arrived at Prey Sar and I was called to meet them my heart was racing. They are here to announce my imminent release, I thought. Quiet diplomacy has won the day. No such luck. False alarm. They were visiting me only to enquire after my health. Why? By way of an answer they showed me the letter Bishop had written to Cambodia’s Foreign Minister. This was a letter that Bishop’s office refused to release to either the media or my family. For good reason, I discovered. In it Bishop made clear that the Australian government had no intention at all of intervening in my case but was concerned about my health. The subtext of the letter was that the Cambodian judiciary could do as it liked with me, regardless of the lack of evidence that I had committed any crime, but please make sure that during my incarceration I remained healthy and did not suffer the same fate as Zippy.

 

Bishop had led the media and my family astray by claiming (or allowing the media to believe) that she was intervening. She had lied! Or had she? Had she and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ‘intervened’ whilst at the same time I was being informed in letters from Ambassador Angela Corcoran,  that they could not? It would not be until after my release that I would get an answer to this question? Yes, Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull and Cambodia’s, Hun Sen, agreed in March 2018 that I would be found guilty of espionage and then granted a King’s Pardon.

 

The fact that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made such a handshake deal with Hun Sen to secure my release via a King’s Pardon after I had been found guilty, at the same time that DFAT was insisting, in writing, that it could not and would not intervene in any way in my case, raises interesting and pertinent questions about what takes place behind the scenes in the messy world of international diplomacy. Was Turnbull doing me a favour in securing such a deal? Was it the best deal he could make with a mercurial leader such as Hun Sen? Could he or the Australian Embassy not have let me know of this deal on the understanding that I did not reveal it to anyone? This would have saved me $100,000 in legal fees defending myself in accordance with Cambodian and international law in a case the outcome of which had been decided upon by Turnbull and Hun Sen 5 months earlier? 

When I got pneumonia in April 2018, or some other serious viral infection (my illness was never diagnosed) and my weight dropped from 88 to 69 kilos, a visit from the Grim Reaper seemed to be on the cards. This was a source of great worry and anxiety for my family. As my brother Peter would recount for the “Australian Story”  cameras later in the year, “We thought James was going to die.” If I had died would this deal of Turnbull’s seemed like a good one given that he, DFAT and the Australian Embassy knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the espionage charges were nonsense?