[governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally

[Ginger Paque]

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:
http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences

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 <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this.
>
> Mawaki
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/
> >
> > 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 (http://www.thenation.com)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm
> >
> >
> > 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:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120818/4a778cdb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t