<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal.dotm</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>658</o:Words>
<o:Characters>3751</o:Characters>
<o:Company>DiploFoundation</o:Company>
<o:Lines>31</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>7</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>4606</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>12.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<p
style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Cambria">Hi
Mawaki,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Cambria"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Cambria">Here
is
an attempt to answer your question on the international legality
of the 1987
Act in three ways: Twitter, e-mail and blog post. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Cambria"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Cambria">The
short
answer – Twitter – is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">that
<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46">the 1987
UK Diplomatic and
Consular Premises Act</a> is in accordance with
international law</i> (the 1961
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - VCDR and
international customary law). <o:p><br>
</o:p>A bit
longer answer for this e-mail should rely on the sequence in
establishing
diplomatic relations between states with three important
moments:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Cambria"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Cambria">-
First,
states have to recognise each other. <o:p></o:p><br>
- Second,
after recognition, states establish diplomatic relations. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Cambria">-
Third,
after two states establish diplomatic relations, they can open
diplomatic missions.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Cambria"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Here is how this sequence
can apply to the
Assange asylum case: <o:p><br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p><br>
</o:p>The UK can sever diplomatic relations
unilaterally. Diplomatic relations are concluded by mutual
consent (Article 2
of VCDR). If consent is withdrawn, diplomatic relations cease to
exist. <o:p><br>
</o:p>After severing diplomatic relations, the UK
would require Ecuador to close its embassy in London, and
Ecuadorian diplomats
to leave the territory of the United Kingdom within a reasonable
time. ‘Reasonable
time’ is not specified, but it usually takes between 7 days (in
the case of the
closure of the Libyan mission in London in 1984) and one month.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>On this point Assange
would remain alone
in the Ecuadorian embassy. The VDRC does not specify how long
the premises of
the mission mission should preserve diplomatic status (remain
inviolable). <o:p></o:p><br>
Most of the practice in diplomatic law provides
the ‘reasonable time’ needed to protect and move the mission’s
archives and
property. The 1987 Act codifies this practice and specifies how
to deal with
this lacuna in the VCDR (time for closing the mission). <o:p><br>
</o:p>Once the premises are no longer inviolable,
the UK can enter the premises of the Embassy and arrest Assange
if he is still
there. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It is very difficult to
envisage a scenario
in which the UK police could enter the Ecuadorian embassy
without following the above described sequence – starting with
the severing of diplomatic relations with
Ecuador. Any other action would be a serious blow to the modern
diplomatic
system exposing – among others – the UK diplomatic missions
worldwide, to high
risks. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p><br>
</o:p>While the UK has a legal basis for an
action against the Ecuadorian embassy, its initiative could turn
into a real diplomatic
fiasco. It is surprising that UK diplomacy did not take into
account the strong
attachment of Latin American countries to the right of
diplomatic asylum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Even
in the case of political conflicts
among themselves, Latin American countries have supported
diplomatic asylum. It
is a well-established regional customary law, codified in a few
conventions,
including<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><a
href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iidh.ed.cr%2FBibliotecaWeb%2FVarios%2FDocumentos%2FBD_1051382564%2FB.2.1.DOC%3Furl%3D%2FBibliotecaWeb%2FVarios%2FDocumentos%2FBD_1051382564%2FB.2.1.DOC&ei=JgExUPWEAcjU4QT28oCwDg&usg=AFQjCNEHWkWD8hItVeTFQtdXbZSHUj31ag">1928
–
Havana</a>, <a
href="http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-37.html">1933
–
Montevideo</a>, <a
href="http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-46.html">1954
– Caracas</a>.
The right of asylum is also granted by Article 27 of <a
href="http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/oasinstr/zoas2dec.htm">the
1948 American
Declaration on Human Rights</a>. <o:p><br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p><br>
</o:p>By accelerating the Assange asylum case,
the UK – to use a football metaphor – put the ball into penalty
and asked President
Correa to strike without a goal-keeper. He could not miss such a
chance. In a
few days, President Correa will gather all LA ministers of
foreign affairs as a
symbol of unity against the UK action. Given his political
situation, it is an
unexpected and welcome gift.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The Assange asylum case,
like other similar
cases, is likely to be solved through negotiations that will
provide the UK
with a face-saving exit strategy. Might the Swedish authorities
be persuaded to
conduct the hearing ‘remotely’? If negotiations fail, Assange is
likely to be
long-term tenant of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> <br>
You can also see two texts with </o:p><a
href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/international-law-and-assange-asylum-case">more
detailed legal elaboration of this e-mail</a> and <a
href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/frequently-asked-questions-about-diplomatic-asylum">FAQs
about
diplomatic asylum</a>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p><br>
I hope it will help in clarifying, at least, legal aspect of
this complex case. <br>
<br>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As ever, Jovan <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<!--EndFragment-->
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 2008">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 2008">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file://localhost/Users/jovan/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
p
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Times;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
On 8/19/12 4:26 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACTo+v9K_+ux1iBO-M2vrO2CS7WM3XCm3icqgfNAaji3Mm=rrQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Two things:
1. Has anyone looked into or analyzed what the ground is in that
Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 on which the UK
authorities are basing their argument and decision? and how is that
act supposed to relate to the Vienna Convention of 1961? Maybe there
is some defect in the conditions/circumstance that surrounded the
attribution of those premises or building to the Ecuador? I mean, what
could possibly be the legally defensible basis from a domestic law
that came about more than a quarter century after an international
convention to which the concerned country was signatory - while nobody
seems to have known that that law meant for the said country an
amendment or a notable qualification to some significant provisions of
the convention?
2. It might be a little too late for anyone to be able to disentangle
possible political motivations from these legal procedures (in UK and
Sweden). The party that appears the most obscure to me in terms of
their true motivation and intent is the Swedish judiciary,
surprisingly. To my recollection, the charges of sexual misconduct
were dropped at some point and a while thereafter they were taken up
again by another (higher?) level of the judiciary in Sweden. I have
never come across any credible account as to why that was so, and I
was surprised at the time I couldn't hear much about (at least not any
substantial investigation of) that question in the US-based cable news
as I tried to find an explanation. Adding to that the questions raised
above by Norbert and also emphasized by Ginger... Furthermore, I too
(as Carlos Vera) remember that it was mentioned in the news reports
that the substance of the sexual charges - or at least the allegations
- revolved around Assange not using a protection during those
encounters, etc. I am not sure whether - indeed, I did not hear that -
the presumed victims have alleged any physical coercion to that effect
or whether those news reports were accurate as to the exact or
official content of the charges, if any. The fact is, it is already
difficult enough to get to the bottom of allegations of rape without
third party witness and without evidence of violence, but now you have
some hot political concoction surrounding it...
Troubling.
Mawaki
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cveraq@gmail.com"><cveraq@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ecuadorian gov. Express to Mr Assange he is welcome to Ecuador from the
begining of rhis affair. If he only would listen from that time this
political advise...
Carlos Vera
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 18/08/2012, a las 18:26, Ginger Paque <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ginger@paque.net"><ginger@paque.net></a> escribió:
A very important point is stated at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341</a>
This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary.
This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be
investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know).
18 November 2010
Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for
questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available
for questioning.
Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be
interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video
link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange
return to Sweden.
On 18 August 2012 18:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com"><salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
meant to say *from various extradition treaties
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com"><salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
A fundamental principle in criminal law is that only if Sweden had
already laid charges and served this on him physically, then they can begin
to make demands. As for extradition requests of this nature or obligations
stemming from various extraditions can only kick in after the charge has
been served on the person and the usual summons to attend trial.
Question is were charges laid against Assange?
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cveraq@gmail.com"><cveraq@gmail.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges
Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was
no using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions
from Assange
I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself
This is a very particular case in Sweden legislation I guess...
Carlos Vera
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ginger@paque.net"><ginger@paque.net></a> escribió:
Aldo,
I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the
sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or
imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter.
But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible:
1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges,
when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct.
2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges,
because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case.
**3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is
using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily be
settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't think
rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a chance to
face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is guilty.
As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to
Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically in
another post). Possible strategies:
--Questioning in the UK.
--Video questioning.
--Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom.
I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and
workable options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and
clearly aired, without endangering Assange's political rights.
I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his
WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically
motivated harassment or charge.
I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing
charges of rape if the are legitimate.
I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is
important.
Ginger
On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:aldo.matteucci@gmail.com"><aldo.matteucci@gmail.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Ginger,
the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues
we can't decide.
The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse
to jail him for good and throw away the key.
After all, that's what the US want.
My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter
but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the
usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him.
One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies.
Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is
normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here?
Aldo
On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ginger@paque.net"><ginger@paque.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and
legal details.
It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations,
close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian
diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political
issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be
investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from
political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the rape
charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can support
Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still want to see
him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that is a
well-founded allegation.
There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible
solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going on
at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences">http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences</a>
I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the
sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to /
or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying?
Cheers, Ginger
On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com"><kichango@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this.
Mawaki
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:riaz.tayob@gmail.com"><riaz.tayob@gmail.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
America's vassal acts decisively and illegally
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist.
He was
British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004
and Rector
of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/">http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/</a>
I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation
from
within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after
immense
pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean
Embassy and
seize Julian Assange.
This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna
Convention
of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which
encodes
the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled
diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most
subscribed single international treaty in the world.
The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic
premises
are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no
modification or
qualification elsewhere in the treaty.
Article 22
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of
the
receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the
head of
the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all
appropriate steps
to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or
damage and
to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or
impairment of its
dignity.
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.
Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to
arrest the
Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the
Cold War,
defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s
embassies.
Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British
Embassy to
help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law
will result
in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment
worldwide.
The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a
strong
enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom
of the
“might is right” principle in international relations, in the era
of the
neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of
international law.
The British Government bases its argument on domestic British
legislation.
But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its
obligations in
international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the
government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by
the
Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would
leave
British diplomats with no protection worldwide.
I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US
administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against
the
concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing
the move
against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been
taken in
Number 10.
There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal
Democrats.
That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal”
impact now in
any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government
salaries and
privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any
belief to
these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that
party for
over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had
principles.
***
Published on The Nation (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thenation.com">http://www.thenation.com</a>)
The Geopolitics of Asylum
Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012
The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian
Assange from
Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted
political
asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international
human rights
lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and
made it
into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner,
president of the
Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation
today.
Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a
week in
Ecuador for discussions of the case.
The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through
negotiations or by
the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In
my memory,
no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize
someone who has
been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic
in
returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for
political
reasons.
Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago,
Ecuadorian
diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the
British
and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the
United
States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act.
Such
guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister,
Ricardo
Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit
threat” to
“assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British
colony,” Patiño
added.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his
government
will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for
what may be
a prolonged showdown.
The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict
Assange and
ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator
Diane
Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have
called for
Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong
objections from
civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may
prefer to
avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes
with the
UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in
Sweden.
Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the
conflict becomes
one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand
off against
the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the
wave of new
nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the
traditional US
dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa
joined
the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in
June 2009,
and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His
government
fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon
rainforest, in a
case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the
country.”
He survived a coup attempt in 2010.
It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision
without
consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive
reaction by the
British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to
solidify Latin
American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in
relations
with the United States.
Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked
the Obama
administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to
participate in
another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba.
Shortly
after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy
chief, Dan
Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama
administration.
Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United
States and
the region.
***
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm">http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm</a>
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 16, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:44 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s
on your
minds.
Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to
grant
diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange?
MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the
Swedes.
I don't have anything particular to add.
Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of
a
completely neutral, independent observer of it?
MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue,
it is an
issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to
interject
ourselves.
Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all?
MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or
where he
may end up going, no.
Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing
the Brits
to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him.
MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any
truth to
that at all.
Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the
Brits do not
recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States
recognizes
diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS
treaty
which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only,
presumably,
within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S.
recognize
diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law?
MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal
answer to
the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers.
Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different,
diplomatic
asylum.
MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making
or the
statement that they made, our understanding was that they were
leaning on
British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future
plans,
not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our
legal
position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and
get back to
you.
Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines
of the --
of the OAS and those signatories.
And then when you said that you don't have any information to
suggest that
you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr.
Assange removed
from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or
just that
you're not aware of it?
MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves
in this.
If that is not correct, we'll get back to you.
[...]
Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason
that the
Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that
-- they
agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution --
government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the
United States
under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a
credible
argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government
persecution in
the United States?
MS. NULAND: No.
Q: No?
MS. NULAND: No.
Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case,
the
grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country
guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to
show up in
the United States they might be subject to government persecution,
you don't
view that as --
MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran
thought
process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention
to
persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no.
Q: OK.
MS. NULAND: OK?
Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would
face
prosecution?
MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was
not headed
to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to
get into
all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been
in his
future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission.
But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on
persecuting him, I
reject that completely.
Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case
does
rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the
legal
niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the
intention
was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face
prosecution in the United States?
MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action
that we were
all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think
that
when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed,
right?
Obviously, we have --
Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden.
MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm
going to
send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK?
Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case
against him.
MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much
involved
with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics
here on what
their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to
wade into
it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right?
Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it
doesn't
involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies
and that
kind of thing.
MS. NULAND: Right.
Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved
yourselves
at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was
going to
raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other
country,
you would find that to be unacceptable, correct?
MS. NULAND: As I said --
Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in
Beijing
to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have
objected to
that, correct?
MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies
have cited
British law with regard to the statements they've made about
potential
future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law,
international -- as compared to international law.
So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of
whether they
have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under
British
law, I'm going to send you to them.
Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean,
there is
international law here too, and presumably the United State would
oppose or
would condemn or at least express concerns about any government
entering or
violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the
world,
no?
MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are
standing on
vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to
what the
status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the
moment is.
So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know
where we are
on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK?
Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back
in 1979,
presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right?
MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a
Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest
of this
on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK?
Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by
the
Justice Department. Does that include --
MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department
is
working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak
to what
Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice.
Q: Is there a U.S. case against him?
MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really
don't have
the details. OK? Thanks, guys.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.)
DPB #146
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Aldo Matteucci
65, Pourtalèsstr.
CH 3074 MURI b. Bern
Switzerland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:aldo.matteucci@gmail.com">aldo.matteucci@gmail.com</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro">Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</a>
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro">Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</a>
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial"
lang="EN-US"></span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span>
<div class="moz-signature">
<div class="Section1">
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>