Posts
Tensions
mount ahead of Assange asylum decision
The Ecuadorean government will announce its decision on Julian Assange’s appeal for political asylum at 10 o'clock tonight, Eastern Australian time.
SMH,
16
August, 2012
However,
contrary to media and Twitter speculation, British police have not
raided Ecuador’s London embassy to arrest Assange to facilitate his
extradition to Sweden.
The Ecuadorean government has expressed “shock” at what it described as a "written threat" by the British government to send police into Ecuador’s London embassy to seize Mr Assange, who sought refuge there two months ago.
“We are deeply shocked by the British government’s threats against the sovereignty of the Ecuadorean embassy and their suggestion that they may forcibly enter the embassy,” a statement released by the Ecuadorean Foreign Ministry said late last night.
“This is a clear breach of international law and the protocols set out in the Vienna Convention. Throughout the last 56 days Mr Julian Assange has been in the embassy, the Ecuadorean government has acted honourably in all our attempts to seek a resolution to the situation. This stands in stark contrast to the escalation of the British government today with their threats to break down the door of the Ecuadorean embassy.”
The reference to possible police entry into the embassy was contained in a British diplomatic note revealed by Ecuador’s Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patino, at a press conference in Quito yesterday.
Amid
the escalating tension, a government official in Quito has told The
New York Times that Ecuador is prepared to allow Mr Assange to remain
in its embassy in London indefinitely under a type of humanitarian
protection.
Metropolitan
Police officers wait outside the main door of the Ecuadorean embassy
in London, where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is seeking
political asylum. Photo:
AFP
The
official said that the British government had made it clear it would
not allow Mr. Assange to leave the country to travel to Ecuador, so
even with a grant of asylum or similar protection, he would probably
remain stuck in the embassy.
Assange
sought asylum in the embassy in London on June 19 after his final
appeal against extradition to Sweden to face questioning about sexual
assault allegations was rejected by Britain’s highest court.
The WikiLeaks publisher fears extradition to Sweden will facilitate his extradition to the United States on espionage charges arising from the alleged leaking of classified US military and diplomatic reports by US Army private Bradley Manning.
The note from the British Foreign Office was triggered by premature media reports that Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa had already granted Assange political asylum.
The Foreign Office note to asserts Assange’s continued presence at the Ecuadorean embassy is “incompatible with the Vienna Convention [on Diplomatic Relations] and unsustainable, and … we have made clear the serious implications for our diplomatic relations”.
"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,” the note says. "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."
The note indicates that Ecuador and Britain have been discussing a possible “jointly agreed text” to cover the public relations aspects of Assange’s “voluntary” departure from the embassy.
However, these negotiations appear to have broken down with Mr Patino rejecting the British warning of possible police intervention as an “unacceptable act of hostility".
Mr Patino added “we’re not a British colony” and said his country would be forced to respond if British police entered the embassy. He said he would seek an urgent summit of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Union of South American Nations and the Organisation of American States to discuss the “threat” to Ecuador’s sovereignty.
The WikiLeaks publisher fears extradition to Sweden will facilitate his extradition to the United States on espionage charges arising from the alleged leaking of classified US military and diplomatic reports by US Army private Bradley Manning.
The note from the British Foreign Office was triggered by premature media reports that Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa had already granted Assange political asylum.
The Foreign Office note to asserts Assange’s continued presence at the Ecuadorean embassy is “incompatible with the Vienna Convention [on Diplomatic Relations] and unsustainable, and … we have made clear the serious implications for our diplomatic relations”.
"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,” the note says. "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."
The note indicates that Ecuador and Britain have been discussing a possible “jointly agreed text” to cover the public relations aspects of Assange’s “voluntary” departure from the embassy.
However, these negotiations appear to have broken down with Mr Patino rejecting the British warning of possible police intervention as an “unacceptable act of hostility".
Mr Patino added “we’re not a British colony” and said his country would be forced to respond if British police entered the embassy. He said he would seek an urgent summit of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Union of South American Nations and the Organisation of American States to discuss the “threat” to Ecuador’s sovereignty.
London's
Metropolitan Police has maintained a continuous presence outside the
embassy for the past two months.
Police
stationed outside the Ecuadorian embassy where Julian Assange
remains.
Police
have taped off an area around the embassy building and positioned
themselves in the interior fire escape and interior foyer but have
not entered the embassy itself.
Shortly
before 1pm Australian time, WikiLeaks released a statement saying
that in a message to the Ecuadorian government the UK had
‘‘threatened to forcefully enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London
and arrest Julian Assange’’.
The
statement claimed that the UK had said such action would be
permissible under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.
Police
guard the front door of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political asylum. Photo:
Paul Stewart
It
said UK authorities had made the warning because it had become aware
Ecuador was planning on granting Mr Assange asylum.
Condemning
the threat, the Wikileaks statement said: ‘‘Any transgression
against the sanctity of the embassy is a unilateral and shameful act,
and a violation of the Vienna Convention, which protects embassies
worldwide.''
Wikileaks
called for the resignation of UK Foreign Secretary William Hague if
he was involved in approving the police action.
Police
outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Julian Assange is
seeking political asylum. Photo: Paul Stewart Photo:
Paul Stewart
And
WikiLeaks cited the 1967 resolution of the United Nations General
Assembly, Resolution 2312, which states ‘the grant of asylum. . .
is a peaceful and humanitarian act and that, as such, it cannot be
regarded as unfriendly by any other State'.
‘‘We
remind the public that these extraordinary actions are being taken to
detain a man who has not been charged with any crime in any
country,’’ the statement added.
Australian
National University international law expert Don Rothwell described
the UK threat as extraordinary and without precedent in modern
history.
Embassy
of the Republic of Ecuador in London. Photo: Paul Stewart. Photo:
Paul Stewart
Professor Rothwell said in a statement: ‘‘It highlights how serious the United Kingdom government is about extraditing Assange to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning over sexual assault.
‘‘If
the United Kingdom revoked the Embassy’s diplomatic protection and
entered the Embassy to arrest Assange, Ecuador could rightly view
this as a significant violation of international law which may find
its way before an international court.’’
Whatever
happens, Mr Assange’s chances of finding safe haven appear to
rapidly diminishing.
‘‘Irrespective
of the outcome of this diplomatic impasse between Ecuador and the
United Kingdom, the prospects of Assange enjoying any level of
protection, even if he was granted asylum by Ecuador, now appear very
remote given the determination of the UK to extradite him to
Sweden.’’
Reports
from a “citizen journalist” outside the embassy that police had
already launched a raid appear incorrect, and WikiLeaks has not made
any such claim.
British Crown Prosecution Service guidelines states that diplomatic premises “are inviolable and may not be entered [by police] without the consent of the Ambassador or Head of Mission”. Britain has not revoked the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorean embassy.
Late last night the British Foreign Office issued a statement that said “we are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution” with Ecuador.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard told a press conference in Canberra this morning that the Australian government was not in a position to comment on reports that British police were moving to arrest Assange.
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon also said the government had yet to receive any formal advice on Assange's asylum application to Ecuador. She said she had learnt of the latest information through the media.
Despite calls for Australian government intervention into Assange's circumstances, Ms Roxon insisted that the matter was an issue between Assange and Ecuador, ''and increasingly it seems it is a matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom''.
The level of public expectation that the government must intervene in the Assange case was far greater than the actual powers available to the Commonwealth, Ms Roxon said.
''Our role in this is only a diplomatic one, a consular one to make sure Mr Assange has support that he needs for consular issues. It's not something where we have any legal role where we can play.''
Australian diplomatic cables released under freedom of information legislation show that a senior Swedish justice ministry official assured Australian diplomats in December last year that Assange’s legal case, “including any possible extradition request from a third country, would proceed in accordance with due process under Swedish law”.
The Swedish, British and Australian governments have all denied knowledge of any US intention to seek Assange’s extradition.
However, other declassified Australian diplomatic cables show that in December 2010 the Australian embassy in Washington reported that the US Justice Department had confirmed WikiLeaks and Assange were targets of an espionage investigation of “unprecedented scale and nature”.
British Crown Prosecution Service guidelines states that diplomatic premises “are inviolable and may not be entered [by police] without the consent of the Ambassador or Head of Mission”. Britain has not revoked the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorean embassy.
Late last night the British Foreign Office issued a statement that said “we are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution” with Ecuador.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard told a press conference in Canberra this morning that the Australian government was not in a position to comment on reports that British police were moving to arrest Assange.
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon also said the government had yet to receive any formal advice on Assange's asylum application to Ecuador. She said she had learnt of the latest information through the media.
Despite calls for Australian government intervention into Assange's circumstances, Ms Roxon insisted that the matter was an issue between Assange and Ecuador, ''and increasingly it seems it is a matter between Ecuador and the United Kingdom''.
The level of public expectation that the government must intervene in the Assange case was far greater than the actual powers available to the Commonwealth, Ms Roxon said.
''Our role in this is only a diplomatic one, a consular one to make sure Mr Assange has support that he needs for consular issues. It's not something where we have any legal role where we can play.''
Australian diplomatic cables released under freedom of information legislation show that a senior Swedish justice ministry official assured Australian diplomats in December last year that Assange’s legal case, “including any possible extradition request from a third country, would proceed in accordance with due process under Swedish law”.
The Swedish, British and Australian governments have all denied knowledge of any US intention to seek Assange’s extradition.
However, other declassified Australian diplomatic cables show that in December 2010 the Australian embassy in Washington reported that the US Justice Department had confirmed WikiLeaks and Assange were targets of an espionage investigation of “unprecedented scale and nature”.
Last
month the Justice Department publicly confirmed that a criminal
investigation into WikiLeaks was continuing.
The Australian government claims to have urged Washington to ensure that any effort to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher is conducted through "all of the proper processes".
Ms Roxon's office told Fairfax Media in May that she had made repeated representations concerning Assange, including in separate discussions with US ambassador Jeffrey Bleich, US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and US Deputy Attorney-General James Cole.
However, the Attorney-General’s Department has now advised that it has a record of only one discussion between Ms Roxon and US officials that dealt, at least in part, with Assange – a meeting with Mr Cole in Washington on May 15.
The department has refused to disclose the record of the meeting under freedom of information on the grounds that “release of this material could undermine Australia’s relationship with the United States, a trusted ally, and could disrupt the free flow of information between our nations''.
The Australian government claims to have urged Washington to ensure that any effort to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher is conducted through "all of the proper processes".
Ms Roxon's office told Fairfax Media in May that she had made repeated representations concerning Assange, including in separate discussions with US ambassador Jeffrey Bleich, US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and US Deputy Attorney-General James Cole.
However, the Attorney-General’s Department has now advised that it has a record of only one discussion between Ms Roxon and US officials that dealt, at least in part, with Assange – a meeting with Mr Cole in Washington on May 15.
The department has refused to disclose the record of the meeting under freedom of information on the grounds that “release of this material could undermine Australia’s relationship with the United States, a trusted ally, and could disrupt the free flow of information between our nations''.
Wikileaks:
Statement on UK
threat to storm Ecuadorian
embassy and arrest Julian
Assange
15
August, 2012
In
a communication this morning to the government of Ecuador, the UK
threatened to forcefully enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London and
arrest Julian Assange.
The
UK claims the power to do so under the Diplomatic and Consular
Premises Act 1987.
This
claim is without basis.
By
midnight, two hours prior to the time of this announcement, the
embassy had been surrounded by police, in a menacing show of force.
Any
transgression against the sanctity of the embassy is a unilateral and
shameful act, and a violation of the Vienna Convention, which
protects embassies worldwide.
This
threat is designed to preempt Ecuador’s imminent decision on
whether it will grant Julian Assange political asylum, and to bully
Ecuador into a decision that is agreeable to the United Kingdom and
its allies.
WikiLeaks
condemns in the strongest possible terms the UK’s resort to
intimidation.
A
threat of this nature is a hostile and extreme act, which is not
proportionate to the circumstances, and an unprecedented assault on
the rights of asylum seekers worldwide.
We
draw attention to the fact that the United Nations General Assembly
has unanimously declared in Resolution 2312 (1967) that
"the
grant of asylum. . . is a peaceful and humanitarian act and that, as
such, it cannot be regarded as unfriendly by any other State."
Pursuant
to this resolution, a decision to grant asylum cannot be construed by
another State as an unfriendly act. Neither can there be diplomatic
consequences for granting asylum.
We
remind the public that these extraordinary actions are being taken to
detain a man who has not been charged with any crime in any country.
WikiLeaks
joins the Government of Ecuador in urging the UK to resolve this
situation according to peaceful norms of conduct.
We
further urge the UK government to show restraint, and to consider the
dire ramifications of any violation of the elementary norms of
international law.
We
ask that the UK respect Ecuador’s sovereign right to deliver a
decision of its own making on Julian Assange’s asylum bid.
Noting
that Ecuador has called for emergency summits of OAS and UNASUR in
response to this development, WikiLeaks asks those bodies to support
Ecuador’s rights in this matter, and to oppose any attempts to
coerce a decision.
We
note with interest that this development coincides with the UK
Secretary of State William Hague’s assumption of executive
responsibilities during the vacation of the Prime Minister and Deputy
Prime Minister.
Mr
Hague’s department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has
overseen the negotiations to date with Ecuador in the matter of Mr
Assange’s asylum bid.
If
Mr Hague has, as would be expected, approved this decision, WikiLeaks
calls for his immediate resignation.
Australian
Documentary on Julian Assange’s situation:
Friends
of WikiLeaks Support Network: https://wlfriends.org
Justice
for Assange: http://justice4assange.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.