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

Sat Aug 18 14:42:02 EDT 2012

There is an interesting article on the matter in one of the blogs by Jovan
Kurbalija, see:
http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/the-assange-asylum-case-five-possible-solutions-and-many-probable-consequences/

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh
<fahd.batayneh at gmail.com>wrote:

> The Assange debate reminds me of JFK when he was murdered for all the
> wrong reasons.
>
> In Jordan, when a new government is installed, the prime minister is given
> a couple of weeks to assemble his cabinet before they are given the vote of
> confidence from the house of parliament. In Jordan's history, only one
> government was not given the vote of confidence. The reason is because that
> prime minister used the slogan of "Cracking Down Corruption". Corrupt
> politicians do not want to be pointed at.
>
> I can see from the Assange case that one of the main reasons the world is
> on their knees wanting him is - maybe - because corrupt politicians do not
> want to get exposed.
>
> Fahd
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120819/3a68aada/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