Ecuador granted asylum to Julian Assange today, an act that will further escalate the conflict between Britain and Ecuador. As I discussed on BBC last night, there are some common legal misunderstandings about the status of an embassy, but as a practical matter Assange should be beyond the reach of the English. While the government has threatened to strip the embassy of diplomatic status and grad Assange, it is in my view an empty threat. However, Assange is not likely to see Ecuador any time soon since he can be arrested trying to leave the country.
Assange has embarrassed the United States with disclosures on Wikileaks that revealed, among other things that the government has lied to the public on critical matters. This includes disclosures of how the Obama Administration threatened Spain in order to protect Bush officials from being investigated for war crimes and torture.
It is widely believed that the United States government is pressuring both the government of England and Sweden on arresting Assange to allow it to extradite him. There is a rumored sealed indictment in the United States, which may prosecute Assange for espionage — a highly troubling prosecution for journalists and whistleblowers.
The British threat to raid the embassy is not legally unfounded. There is a common misunderstanding about embassies which are not legally “the soil of the foreign government.” An embassy in London sits on English soil and that country has jurisdiction over it. However, siting on that land is a building occupied with people with diplomatic immunity. As such, it is considered inviolate.
The British government is threatening to use a 1987 British law it says permits the revocation of diplomatic status of a building if the foreign power occupying it “ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post.” The use of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act however would trigger an international outcry and beg for acts of retaliations.
The the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires diplomats to comply with the laws of the host country and international law does not expressly endorse diplomatic asylum in such cases. That 1961 convention suggests that Ecuador is legally obligated to turn over Assange.
However, countries routinely are faced with such requests — most of which are turned away. However, the United States recently faced this very same dilemma in Beijing when a blind activist fled to our own embassy. Likewise, the U.S. faced this problem when Cardinal Mindszenty took refuge in our embassy in Budapest following the Hungarian uprising in 1956.
Ecuador may take a different view due to the agreement following the 1949 controversy over Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre, leader of the Peruvian APRA movement, who took refuge in the Colombian embassy in Lima. The International Court of Justice ruled against the claim of diplomatic asylum. This led to countries in Latin America adopting of convention supporting such claims, but England is not part of that agreement.
Technically, Ecuador could conceivable get Assange as far as the airport if he rides in an embassy car with a diplomat. However, he has to step out of that car at some point and will face arrest.
It is a classic standoff. The extent to which Britain has pursued the case and issued the threatening letter to Ecuador probably reflects the degree of pressure coming from the Obama Administration. Officials have made it clear that they want Assange’s head on a pike and the best way to do that is to get him to Sweden on the sexual assault charges. Ecuador has offered to let Swedish prosecutors interview Assange at the embassy, but that country has refused.
I would be astonished if England uses its law to strip the embassy of its status. However, I would not be surprised to learn that Obama officials are pushing for precisely that step. Many of Assange’s supporters are likely to point out that we would have to wait for the next Wikileaks dump to learn the truth on that one.
Source: CNN
Isn’t this the same Great Britain that allowed Gen. Pinochet (he of the infamous Chilean right-wing death squads) to go free after arresting him for human rights violations.
Paraphrasing Mel Brooks:
Its good to be the right-wing mass murdering dictator.
Reading the Vienna Convention, article 22, paragraph 3, says:
3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
I see nothing else in the Convention to contradict that; so the simple scenario I outlined above works: Drive to the airport, step from it onto a plane, and you have never left the protection of diplomatic immunity; the plane is a “means of transport,” the car is a “means of transport.”
This could be a plot in the next James Bond movie. Assange is dangerous to the US and Western powers because he spit in their collective eyes. I agree with OS that an Ecuadorian cargo plane could handle the diplomatic vehicle without a problem. The problem will be what, if anything, Britain decides to do.
Not sure of the legal niceties here, but it is conceivable that Ecuador could send a C-130 or similar cargo aircraft and a standard sized automobile could drive directly up the ramp and into the cargo hold of the aircraft. Assange and occupants of the limousine would not even have to exit the car. I saw the comment above about a small automobile, but a C-130 cargo area is enormous. I foresee all kinds of problems the UK government could cause to try and keep an aircraft from taking off, but that is another story.
This is not about rape, or even “interviewing” Assange. It is about international pressure to silence a whistle-blower. We have already seen the biggest credit card companies and PayPal being pressured to not allow their services to be used to process contributions to WikiLeaks. What all this tells me is there are several large countries who are terrified of WikiLeaks.
There are witness reports of him, or someone that looks like him going into the embassy shortly before the police showed up. A fake out while he is on his way elsewhere in a private jet wold be very elegant but Britain is crawling with CCTV, If The security forces were doing their job properly that might be difficult to pull off.
I have no doubt that if it is possible to get him to the U.S. he will never see the light of day again. I don’t think he’s safe anywhere but I sure hope he doesn’t get extradited here and that’s what it’s all about, where the pipeline ends.
ALSO, if the point is simply to not touch British soil, many planes will allow you to step from the car onto the plane; particularly cargo planes with a drop-door/ramp in the back. Put a diplomat in the car, another in the plane, and let Assange step from the diplomatic car onto the diplomatic plane.
ALSO, Article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations defines a “diplomatic bag or pouch” which has full diplomatic immunity against search or seizure. There is no codified size limit on such items, and items as large as shipping containers have been marked as a “diplomatic pouch.”
So put Assange into a shipping container (or just a body bag if he is willing), mark it as a diplomatic pouch, and have a diplomat accompany that pouch to a plane bound for Ecuador. Assange will never physically touch British soil in the transfer.
Tony C, LOL, you (and I) are devious. I just looked up cargo aircraft and there are about 38 different kind that will transport autos/trucks/tanks etc. I wouldn’t want to be in a Chunnel or tunnel- too easy to block off and trap someone.
@ Tony C
I like it!
BTW, as far as I’m aware and I have been following this very closely, no-one has actually sighted Assange at the Embassy in question.
Since Assange has not been charged, I wonder if Sweden has a statute of limitations that will run out in a few years. Maybe he just does his work from the Ecuadorean Embassy for a few years.
@Zvy: Okay. Assange has wealthy friends. Here is another solution: Buy a small electric car, weight about 2000 lbs, Assange and diplomat ride in that to the airport; drive it directly into the cargo bay of a private plane and fly away. Assange never needs to leave the car, and such small cargo planes can be leased (by Ecuador, a donor can provide the funds).
Or, drive to the Chunnel and cross into France; I do not believe Sweden has asked for extradition from France, and drive to a French airport. I am not sure of the jurisdiction agreements, obviously, but this hardly seems like an insurmountable problem to me, getting Assange to Ecuador.
It is worth noting that Assange is not wanted on sexual assault charges.
A Swedish prosecutor wishes to interview him as part of an investigation.
The possible charges in question are are a strange Swedish thing best translated as Minor Rape. This is where someone has consensual sex and regrets it later.
The circumstances are outlined in a UK Supreme Court document
“Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case
The first prosecutor reviewed the evidence and dismissed it as not worthy of charging.
A second prosecutor took up the case.
That prosecutor gave permission for Assange to leave Sweden
While still in Sweden, Assange offered to meet for an interview before leaving, but this was refused as the investigator was ill.
Assange has offered interviews by telephone / video / in-person in the UK.
All have these have been turned down.
Apparently the most recent offer was via the Ecuador embassy, offering an interview there.
This form of interview is allowed for by Swedish law.
That was refused.
The Swedish prosecutor, really, really, really want Assange to attend an interview in Sweden – for some reason. The interview is simply part of an investigation.
No decision to charge has been made.
One might think that the cost of an electronic interview would be very slight in comparison to sending legal teams to the UK, paying barristers for their time in a series of court cases over nearly two years.
Even getting on a plane for the short flight to the UK and back would be petty cash. They would not even need to stay overnight.
.
There are only two possibilities here:
1) The Swedish prosecutor has an absolutely monumental sense of their own importance.
2) This is not, and never was, about two women comparing notes after having consensual sex ( a number of times with Assange after the consensual sex said to be the cause of the regret) and deciding that they had some regrets.
.
There is no question of this being in any way related to vindicating rights on the part of the women. Any delay in having the matter resolved is entirely due to the refusal of the prosecutor to interview Assange anywhere but in Sweden.
.
Sweden has a strange legal system.
There is no bail. A suspect is held incommunicado indefinitely while the prosecution gets its act together. What this will mean in practice for Assange is that he would be held until the US asks for him and the Swedes say yes – which is what they will say.
Even though they are investigating someone, they can ‘loan’ them to another jurisdiction.
.
The whole thing is blatant.
“The extent to which Britain has pursued the case and issued the threatening letter to Ecuador probably reflects the degree of pressure coming from the Obama Administration. Officials have made it clear that they want Assange’s head on a pike and the best way to do that is to get him to Sweden on the sexual assault charges.”
The paragraph above says it all. If this were simply about sexual assault in Sweden, I doubt that Assange would be pursued to the extent he has been pursued. Let’s remember though that we are dealing with a governmental mindset that confuses real security needs, with exposure of security misdeeds. There are no doubt those who feel that Assange has violated their top-secret security, but in my opinion they are wrong. I don’t know the details of Assange’s personal life, but to me he is performing a great service to all of humankind.
Tony, Right.
Up! On your feet! Joy!
JT: I would be astonished if England uses its law to strip the embassy of its status.
So would I; it would constitute tangible proof of the empire building of the USA, and we might see all countries that are friends with Ecuador or simply opposed to USA bullying engage in a tit for tat with British and US embassies. A revocation of traditional embassy rights of diplomatic immunity is just the thing to divide the world and end diplomacy.
@ Tony C
I asked this question of Julian Burnside SC (Assange’s Australia lawyer) on radio today. Apparently, the UK Government must approve diplomats that a country puts forward.
Assange has already left. British Police apparently have been letting “pizza deliveries” come’n’go at the Embassy for weeks. Individual police have probably sold the story to the Murdoch Press.
Joking aside, I’m embarassed by my own Government’s total inaction to assist an Australian citizen. Our own Prime Minister declared Assange “guilty!” (of what?) when he was realising material. Our Attorney General and Foreign Minister are spinless US boot lickers.
For anyone interested Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “4 Corners” did this excellent piece;
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm
(I’d be curious if the above is geo-blocked at all?)
Conceivably, Assange could, in the embassy, become a citizen of Ecuador, and be appointed a deputy diplomat himself with immunity, for the amount of time it takes him to leave the country.
Wikiphobia in action …
“Technically, Ecuador could conceivable get Assange as far as the airport if he rides in an embassy car with a diplomat. However, he has to step out of that car at some point and will face arrest.”
**********************
No problem: