As I discussed today on NPR’s Here and Now, the standoff between England and Ecuador is likely to grow worse after the latter country granted asylum to Julian Assange. While the government has threatened to strip the embassy of diplomatic status and grab Assange, it is in my view an empty threat. However, is there a way for Ecuador to get Assange out of the country?
As I discussed earlier, Assange as a reasonable fear of being extradicted to the United States under a sealed indictment for espionage after embarrassing the Obama Administration with Wikileak disclosures. The appearance of the charges in Sweden at the very time that the United States was trying to seize Assange was viewed by many as highly suspicious if not transparent. Assange previously spoke to prosecutors in Stockholm in denying the charges of the two women. Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné notably declared, “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” The attorney representing the two women appealed the decision to drop part of the investigation and on September 1, 2010, Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny reopened the case just as the United States was pushing globally for actions against Assange. In the meantime, Minister of Social Affairs Goran Hagglund seems to be striving to deny the appearance of a neutral forum in Sweden — going to Twitter recently to denounce Assange as a “coward”, a “pitiful wretch” and a “scumbag.”
The assumption is that, once in Sweden, the United States would unseal an indictment and seek his extradiction. Given the increased use of secret evidence and military tribunals in the United States, there is an embarrassing fear among many worldwide whether Assange would receive a fair trial in the United States.
The pressure from the United States is likely considerable despite the denials by officials. The British government has invoked the nuclear option by 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.
Assange has indicated that he may make a statement outside of the embassy on Sunday. That could be a fatal mistake if he steps outside of embassy grounds. This is not the time for a stroll if he wanted to stay out of custody. He could make a statement from within the embassy, though that would again raise claims from the British government that the embassy is being used for a non-diplomatic purpose.
So does Ecuador have options? Yes, but they are pretty extreme and will raise some uncertainties.
First, Ecuador could essentially mail Assange home. Under article 27 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic bag or diplomatic pouch is given diplomatic protection in carrying material or communications between a diplomatic mission and its home government or other official organizations. A pouch can be any size including a large container. It was must properly marked and locked. That was the failing in 1984 when Nigeria kidnapped and treated to send a former Nigerian government minister back to Nigeria in a pouch. Since it was not properly marked, the British opened the container and freed the captive minister.
Ecuador previously had problems with such pouches. In January 2012, Italy arrested five people for shipping 40 kilograms of liquid cocaine in a diplomatic pouch from Ecuador. It is not clear how the Italians detected the cocaine or how the pouch was opened.
Another even more radical possibility would be to give Assange Ecuadorian citizenship and then give him diplomatic status under Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). The problem is that such credentials are generally presented and accepted by the host nation. That could be a problem since Assange would legally appear as a diplomat within the country. Normally, once diplomatic status is established, the nation can only expel a diplomat as a persona non grata — something Assange would relish. However, the question is whether England would recognize him as a diplomatic even if Ecuador and Assange were willing to claim his citizenship and status. The assumption is that England would have to approve the diplomatic status to be certain that he could leave the country.
Ecuador could try to send Assange to the airport in an embassy car with a diplomat. That should protect him on the roads to the airport, but simply walking into the airport would be a problem. There is the possibility that he could ride in a car through to Switzerland via the Eurotunnel, but the problem is that the embassy’s car park is separated from the embassy. He needs to get to the car even if the English are willing to respect the status of the vehicle.
The easiest approach is for England to agree to “safe passage” but that would not please the United States or English officials keen on seeing Assange punished for his disclosures.
That brings us back to the pouch and mailing Assange in a nice container with a comfy chair, bar, and of course wi-fi access.
Here’s a link to an article that tells of another reason and reinforces the US government not liking Wikileaks. http://rt.com/usa/news/stratfor-trapwire-abraxas-wikileaks-313/
US intends to chase Assange, cables show
Tony C. (and Ottery Scribe),
[…]it has become a point of nationalism and whether a small country will get the respect for its sovereignty to which it is entitled.
You’re right, foreign countries don’t generally care about the US abusing it’s own citizens or it’s own constitution. I was focusing on the wrong thing (the one that gets me upset). They do care , however, about foreign countries with whom they are not at war sending drones into their air space and taking out their citizens as collateral damage or as direct targets, for such actions not only threaten, but directly violate their sovereignty as a nation. They loose face in front of their own their own people. And you don’t have to be the target country to be upset at the international implications of such behavior.
Yet the United States gets away with it just as the British will get away with ignoring treaties through all manner of back stage “diplomacy” (bribes and threats) and because you simply can’t mess with the US openly.
We’ll see how this goes. I couldn’t agree more regarding the basic unfairness of the treatment Assange is getting and the outrage that should be felt by all countries at their treatment of Ecuador. However, I’m betting on Britain getting what it’s master wants with silk gloves if possible and with brute force if not, sovereignty of small countries be damned. I’m also betting that even with brute force, this makes far less of an international scandal than you imagine.
Obama has, I believe, balanced the fallout before the election of doing it now versus doing it later. You can line up the factors and count the points yourselves.
My feel it that ha has said to the British to bluster but stall until after the election.
Meanwhile Hillary is a lame duck and can not hold him back from his pathological decisions. I say pathological both as a diagnosis and in terms of the damage he does.
Why diagnosis? Everybody has asked themselves how can he do all these things (make your own list).
The answer just popped up. He is a sociopath or whatever straight out of the DSM-IV.
He has all the looks shown by Dahmer’s mug shot. And the facility to manipulate as sociopaths do. That will do for starters.
bettykath, not saying we are at war in Yemen. But in the eyes of many, if not most, members of the general public, Yemen is just another desert country in the middle east. Harboring them terr’st peepul, don’cha know.
That is not exactly the same as going after a handsome blond guy who speaks perfect English. And has been interviewed on the television machine, no less. Also has one of the most feared web sites on the Internet. At least, feared by governments. Personally, I agree with what Senator Elbridge Gerry said, that governments should fear their own people. Gerry thought it would help keep the government honest. That was the theory, anyway.
@Brooklin: I think the difference is that the outrage you are talking about belonged to US, as Americans, and it was us that yawned. Other countries do not care much if our government breaks our laws or our Constitution, unless it affects them.
Treaties and Embassy sovereignty is much, much different, because actions there affect them directly and will set precedent they will be bound by, unless they protest and prevent such actions from succeeding.
Assange is neither an American citizen or a British citizen, any action against him becomes a precedent for action against their own citizens. Ecuador is not an ally of the USA or Britain, and any action against their Embassy sets a precedent for the embassies of non-allied Embassies everywhere. What Britain does to the Ecuadorean Embassy will speak volumes in the United Nations, and set up a schism in this world, literally, between the bullies that think they can do anything they want and the weaker countries that do not wish to be controlled by the USA or its puppets.
No world leader really gives a crap about individual deaths of individual citizens, murdered or not. They cannot. What they care about is what psychopaths care about; respect, precedent, privilege and appearances. This has been a brilliant move by Assange, because it is no longer about a person, it has become a point of nationalism and whether a small country will get the respect for its sovereignty to which it is entitled. If Britain violates that sovereignty, there are a hundred countries like Ecuador that will be watching the spectacle of their invasion on TV, and I believe the fallout of the USA pursuing a petty vendetta against the embarrassment Assange created will produce far more political damage for us (both politically and economically) than Assange ever did.
Thank you BettyKath.
Hers is my take on the news from here. Link to Swedish news written by expats is below.
“The lawyer representing the two Swedish women who filed the original complaints against Assange said he was puzzled by Ecuador’s decision.
“I find it very difficult to understand why,” lawyer Claes Borgström told AFP.”
FYI: Claaes Borgström is a former half-as*ed politician.
For some time he has been a whore lawyer, ie a lawyer with bad repute. I report only the “snack” from Stureplan, where he is despised. He has been screaming rape at the top of his voice since he got the case as plaintiff counsel.
He notes that hsi clients have for two years suffered being regarded as conspirators. And rightly so.
They have acted as naive puppets from the beginning. Again guilt by association with conspiring security police.
http://www.thelocal.se/42664/20120816/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=333
OS, ” First of all, the strike against the people in Yemen was more explainable than the Assange case. Consider them to be more akin to the police killing a suspect in a shootout. May not have been the right thing to do, or even the wrong thing, but we are at war in that part of the world, so a missile strike is almost a daily occurrence. ”
When did we declare war on Yemen? The US guvmint has been bombing them with the use of drones, but just when did the public discussion and the declaration of war take place. Uh, oh, my bad. That’s not done any more.
No one has mentioned that what Assange and Wikileaks has done is no different than the MSM has done with other leaks: All the WMD leaks from Bush, et al., Valerie Plame, the Pentagon Papers, even the material from Wikileaks. Why aren’t the NYT, and the other newspapers and their editors being hounded? Just b/c Wikileaks was first in receiving the leaks doesn’t mean they are the only ones. Assange is the patsy. Bradley Manning is a political prisoner as is Assange.
Street Wise,
Cancel the Volvo deal. It is made to resist salty roads in winter, not desert sand and roos impacts. Although moose are alright.
Assange’s programs on RT seem to have been worthwhile.
As for Sweden, we have a long history of riding on USA coattails. Our former, assassinated foreign minister, gave approval to let the CIA render two Egyptians against loose diplomatic assurances of no torture. One was a double agent, the other was tortured in Egypt.
Sweden has recompensed the tortured one. Good show.
The swedes, from the Prime Minister to the security police have cooperated on this honey pot scheme from the beginning. Their first and only mistake was not informing the first prosecutor who declared no crime had been committed. Rapid correction followed.
Hope Assange appeals to the higher European instance.
The only hope is to raise a stink.
The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has looked the other way – perhaps assisting the US while betraying an Australian citizen. Friends there have indicated the next general election will go to Gillard’s opponent. She’s running a coalition government after losing the last general election. Sadly, opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has been mum re Assange, as has former PM Kevin Rudd (whom Gillard replaced in an upheaval).
Julian Assange deserves better – he’s an Australian citizen being set up to take a fall for what? For exposing allegedly confidential government information and U.S. President, Barack Obama, wants vengeance when he promised openness to the American people?
Secret deals with Sweden to lure Assange to betrayer Sweden on a trumped up pretext to arrest him on a sealed U.S. indictment? Sadly, it’s been obvious for a long time that Sweden is allowing itself to be used.
Shame on Great Britain for behaving this way. No wonder their once great empire collapsed. The Queen should have a chat with her Prime Minister. Until then, I shan’t be buying anything British, Swedish (that Volvo purchase is on hold) or Australian anytime soon.
Thank goodness Ecuador was willing to do the right thing.
OS,
you could be right about the “insurance” file. He may have some good protection in that file. Or something worth killing for if the wrong person(s) is/are worried.
I am thinking about all the young people who support Assange. Also, don’t forget the wild card….the group that calls itself Anonymous. Trying to quiet them down is like trying to stamp out flies in a horse barn.
Look for DDoS attacks with a vengeance not seen before. And there is still that 65 Gigabyte “insurance” file released by Wikileaks last February. That is the second such file. There are spies, diplomats and bureaucrats all over the world having a bad case of anal spasms about what might be in those files.
No way , no how I see some sort of significant political backlash against Obama for being tough on Assange. There’s bipartisan support to put him in jail and throw away the key. Anyone who thinks moral outrage would protect Assange needs to pass me whatever you’re smoking.
I hope, when they have the Presidential debates, the questioners ask both Obama and Romney about the proliferation of whistleblower cases. Also about the erosion of Constitutional protections, especially the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments.
Since the VP is only a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, those same questions need to be put to the VP candidates as well. I think Joe Biden will mumble something appropriate, but half expect Paul Ryan to be a wild-eyed zealot who might want to line them up against a wall and shoot them. The even scarier part is there is a percentage of the electorate who will agree with him.
Knock, knock …
makaainana 1, August 17, 2012 at 3:08 pm
As a dreamer, a patriot, and an optomist…
… I propose the question, “What if the US used it wealth and muscle to help feed, clothe, provide shelter, education and medicine to the world?”
Maybe we ought to try it and find out…
======================================
Hear, hear.
… I propose the question, “What if the US used it wealth and muscle to help feed, clothe, provide shelter, education and medicine to the world?”
Maybe we ought to try it and find out…
======================================
Hear, hear.
‘A sunlamp, treadmill and internet cable: The threadbare room inside the Ecuadorian embassy where Julian Assange is hiding… as police wait outside to pounce
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189749/Threadbare-room-inside-Ecuadorian-embassy-Julian-Assange-hiding.html#ixzz23q1aYKwq‘
—————————-
and bless his melanin deprived heart….he NEEDS that sunlamp!
isn’t this the Wikidest new distraction!… and just imagine if it gets all James Bondy ….this could be better than a war in distraction points….
Brooklyn Bridge, there are almost too many differences to count. First of all, the strike against the people in Yemen was more explainable than the Assange case. Consider them to be more akin to the police killing a suspect in a shootout. May not have been the right thing to do, or even the wrong thing, but we are at war in that part of the world, so a missile strike is almost a daily occurrence. That gets a few bloggers and news outlets panties in a wad, but there is no real international attention.
Assange is a far different matter. For one thing, this is a high profile case that, as far as being a true criminal matter, does not pass the smell test. Julian Assange appears to have been set up, and to further cloud the matter, he has not been indicted by Sweden. The investigators just want to talk to him. They have refused repeated offers to have him be interviewed at the Swedish embassy, the Ecuadorian embassy or at the London police headquarters. On the other hand, for other suspects such interviews are pro forma in all cases. What makes Assange different? Try and convince me there has not been a secret deal to render him to US authorities. He could be held indefinitely (as in life) in a military prison without a trial. Assange is considered by many governments around the world to be one of the most dangerous men on the planet, as far as the secrets he either knows or has access to. He tickled the tail of the dragon.
They cannot kill him outright, as much as they might like to. It would not be like a missile strike in the middle of a third world country desert. Up until the matter of Daniel Ellsberg, a whistleblower indictment was unheard of. However, in the past eight or ten years there have been six such indictments, and probably a seventh is coming soon. If Assange has been indicted secretly, that makes eight. The Obama administration has issued more than in the entire history of the country. I do not blame him personally for all of it, since there is no way the President can know what all his agencies and agents do. However, once it becomes public, as a Constitutional law professor himself, he ought to be able to manage this kind of thing a heck of a lot better than he has.