General Discussion

marmar

(77,090 posts) Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:15 AM Aug 2012

Mark Weisbrot: Julian Assange asylum: Ecuador is right to stand up to the US

Julian Assange asylum: Ecuador is right to stand up to the US
The United States would paint itself as a promoter of human rights, but any right to make that claim is long gone

Mark Weisbrot
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 16 August 2012

Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating international law and diplomatic conventions that it is difficult to even find an example of a democratic government even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.

When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry and defiant response, released the written threats to the public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?

"You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy. We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange's presence in your premises, this is an open option for us."

Is there anyone in their right mind who believes that the UK government would make such an unprecedented threat if this were just about an ordinary foreign citizen wanted for questioning – not criminal charges or a trial – by a foreign government?

Ecuador's decision to grant political asylum to Assange was both predictable and reasonable. But it is also a ground-breaking case that has considerable historic significance. .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mark Weisbrot: Julian Assange asylum: Ecuador is right to stand up to the US (Original Post) marmar Aug 2012 OP

thank you, ecuador. nt xchrom Aug 2012 #1

Good article. More on significance of this. suffragette Aug 2012 #2

xchrom

(108,903 posts)

1. thank you, ecuador. nt

Reply to marmar (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:21 AM

Aug 2012

suffragette

(12,232 posts)

2. Good article. More on significance of this.

Reply to marmar (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:30 AM

Aug 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador

Why is this case so significant? It is probably the first time that a citizen fleeing political persecution by the US has been granted political asylum by a democratic government seeking to uphold international human rights conventions. This is a pretty big deal, because for more than 60 years the US has portrayed itself as a proponent of human rights internationally – especially during the cold war. And many people have sought and received asylum in the US.

And from the Guardian's blog:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum-live?CMP=NECNETTXT8187
More from Patiño's expansive press conference earlier.

Reporting from Quito, Reuters reports:

He argued that Assange's personal security was at risk, extradition to a third country without proper guarantees was probable, and legal evidence showed he would not have a fair trial if eventually transferred to the United States.

This is a sovereign decision protected by international law. It makes no sense to surmise that this implies a breaking of relations (with Britain).

Patiño made it clear that Ecuador had asked Sweden for a guarantee that it would not extradite him to the US, were such a request made. But Sweden had said no, he said.

Reply to this discussion