
Ecuador Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino | Presidencia de la República del Ecuador
(update below)
The Ecuador foreign minister made a “severe allegation” today during a press conference against the United Kingdom and claimed they had received a “threat” to storm the Ecuador embassy in the UK to force the country to hand over WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange, who has applied for political asylum in Ecuador.
According to BBC News, Ecuador Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino declared, “We’re not a British colony. UK threat to storm embassy would be hostile and force us to respond.” He added any “attack” would be a violation of the Vienna Convention, the United Nations Charter and other various principles enshrined in international law.
Patino also said, according to BBC world affairs producer Stuart Hughes, ”If the measure announced in the British offical communication is enacted, it will be interpreted by Ecuador as an unacceptable, unfriendly and hostile act and as an attempt against our sovereignty. It would force us to respond.”
ITV News, based in the UK, reports there was a letter that informed Ecuador of the following:
You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy.
We sincerely hope that we do not reach that point, but if you are not capable of resolving this matter of Mr Assange’s presence in your premises, this is an open option for us.
And:
We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna Convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations.
Reports that the UK would arrest Assange if he stepped out of the embassy have been circulating in the media for the past few days. In fact, this was much of the focus of initial reporting on the asylum request: that Assange would be taken into UK custody immediately if he left the confines of the Ecuador embassy. However, there has been no indication up to this point that the UK government has engaged in coercion against Ecuador to force them to decide one way or the other on the asylum request.
It is true that all embassies are generally accepted as sovereign territory that are protected under international law. This is what makes it possible for people who claim to be facing persecution to seek refuge in an embassy in a country. But, under the UK Diplomatic & Consular Premises Act of 1987, it appears the British government believes it could just revoke the immunity embassies typically enjoy.
Though in Spanish, this is the full text of the letter handed over. It shows that the UK has been working or pressuring Ecuador to come to a joint agreement and announce that Assange intends to voluntarily surrender himself to UK authorities for extradition to Sweden. It also suggests that Ecuador had not really committed to convincing Assange to voluntarily surrender and the UK thinks it might have been misled on what final decision the country was going to make because now there are “sources,” according to The Guardian, who have said asylum was granted.
Yesterday, Ecuador President Rafael Correa denied “rumors” that a decision had been made and that asylum had been granted. A spokesperson for WikiLeaks said there had been no notification of a decision given to Assange. A Guardian journalist did not back off the story that was published reporting a decision.
The letter containing the “threat” makes it clear that Assange has no hope of obtaining safe passage from the UK to Ecuador at this current time. Granting asylum will likely lead to imminent diplomatic crisis. The UK has been patient, but it is showing through statements to media outlets like Reuters and domestic press in the UK that views its commitment to extraditing Assange to Sweden to be more important than respecting any decision made by Ecuador to grant asylum.
Update
Statement now from the British government (which doesn’t deny they have “threatened” Ecuador over the asylum decision):
We have consistently made our position clear in our discussions with the government of Ecuador.
The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences and we are remain determined to fulfil this obligation…
…We have an obligation to extradite Mr Assange and it is only right that we give Ecuador the full picture.
Throughout this process have we have drawn the Ecuadorians’ attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK.
We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution.
And a statement from the Ecuador Embassy in London:
We are deeply shocked by British government’s threats against the sovereignty of the Ecuadorian Embassy and their suggestion that they may forcibly enter the embassy.
This is a clear breach of international law and the protocols set out in the Vienna Convention.
Throughout out the last 56 days Mr. Julian Assange has been in the Embassy, the Ecuadorian 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 breakdown the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Instead of threatening violence against the Ecuadorian Embassy the British Government should use its energy to find a peaceful resolution to this situation which we are aiming to achieve.



50 Comments

Here’s an international precedent.
Why do the British have their panties in a bunch. I though it was Sweden that wanted him.
Brits don’ wear no stinkin’ panties!
Usurped authority is a slap in the face. But this business of “storming the embassy” has to be a bluff to sway the decision. They know the property will be defended and people would probably die, plus the incident would set British diplomacy back with other nations. Assange’s “recapture” can’t be worth taking such a risk.
Funny, I remember the U.S. government threatening similar actions against Manuel Noriega when he hid in the de facto Vatican embassy during the invasion of Panama. However, I’m not sure the Brit neighbors to the Ecuadorian embassy would like the psy-ops tactic we used there of blasting rock music at the embassy grounds. Then again, we played the Clash for that tactic, so maybe they would.
The biggest issue seems to be whether Sweden would hold on to Assange or simply engage in a mid-flight course course correction for Fort Leavenworth or Quantico.
This seems to me to be entirely unprecedented. The communications from the UK to Ecuador on this are all out of proportion to what has actually occurred:
1) When the initial Swedish announcement was made on the allegations against Assange, he was in Sweden. He went in to the authorities, offering to cooperate.
2) He remained in Sweden until the complaint seemed to be shelved.
3) While in the UK, the sexual assault investigation went into new, somewhat political channels. Assange, understandably, did not return to Sweden.
4) During his long appeal period, Assange offered to answer any questions by Swedish authorities. They declined his offers.
5) Since residing in the Ecuadorian embassy, the Ecuadorians have offered their premises to the Swedish authorities to interview Assange. They have refused the offer.
—
Assange’s fear of being extradited from Sweden to the USA seems valid, given that the US Government has refused to answer Ecuadorian queries about their interest in Assange.
Discouraging but not surprising. I think we all expected the UK to make a big stink, and it is.
So suspicious, is it not, that the UK would storm Ecuador’s embassy to arrest Assange for questioning in Sweden. No, no, no. IMO this proves that there is a sealed indictment for Assange.
The PTB have no use for nationalities or boundaries. “Disposal” of Assange is the goal… and this sounds like it could be one of those moments in time when very, very few really appreciate the significance of ongoing events.
Transparency, Assange’s general goal, is so simple. Yet Obama et al oppose it at ALL costs because they know it risks their downfall.
Thanks Kevin for posting on this.
wikileaks just posted on twitter:
The UK government may have decided they need to snatch Assange before the Ecuadoreans have their Thursday press conference.
Occupy London has tweeted, with pic that seems to contradict:
Good grief!
The US will go to any lengths to get this guy
This is getting kinda thick. . .
So, how does the 1987 Act actually interface (or not) with the UK’s obligations under the Vienna Convention? Isn’t that what it boils down to?
A history of that 1987 legislation might be useful. I wonder if it had really been aimed at IRA activists/terrorists (however one deems) taking refuge in foreign embassies based in London. Then, if that’s the case, could it have been legislation just for “show?”
Also might there be some hopefuls in DC listening and wondering how the US might evade any treaty by legislative sleight of hand?
Good point-by-point analysis of much of what has unfolded so far.
Those reading the comments – I encourage you to look at my Nation article here for more analysis/insight on the asylum request.
Huge blunder by Cameron to make such a threat, which flies in the face of all established principles of international diplomacy; COLOSSAL blunder if Britain is acting on it.
The response from across Latin America will stun GB, hurt them economically, and help to make clear that the continent is on the rise.
Blunder of the decade? Will be on the top ten list.
Livestream at embassy
“UK threat to storm embassy would be hostile and force us to respond.”
I am reminded how much we liked it when the Iranians stormed our embassy. How soon we forget.
Assange = hero.
Does Cameron really expect Ecuador to submit to these threats? Isn’t this a way to ensure that Ecuador goes ahead and gives asylum to Assange?
facebook appears to have taken down an appeal for people to show up at the embassy in solidarity.
Bambuser is covering the embassy live, in snippets.
Rather than putting Assange in a black prison somewhere. Why dont the PTB just drone the Equadorian embassy. They hate truth, they can just lie their way out of it. Myself i would have removed him months ago.
Heavily armed police now showing up – total of three vans now, one red, which connotes “armed.”
So Facebook reveals its true colors. I’ve always wondered whether the U.S. intel community had a role in the rise of Facebook.
Was the streamer just acknowledging that it might just be a changing of the guard? Does Ecuador have London police assigned to it at all times anyway?
He said two police vans–doesn’t constitute a massive presence, for sure.
bastards
Weren’t the Gestapo and the KGB noted for mounting these raids in the middle of the night?
Not sure we’re currently working on much evidence that a kidnapping is underway–does anyone else see it differently?
Three vans now. It is half past midnight in London, so maybe there was a shift change at the beginning of the new day.
The only thing this can be is a kabuki dance.
Brits attacking the Equadorian Embassy would be taken as an attack against all of Latin America, no? Those countries are often enough like minded on such things. And just to collar Assange?
It makes no sense at all. He can’t go anywhere.
So, international law means nothing at all.
And the Rule of Law is moribund in this nation.
One must now reasonably conclude that governments, “friendly” to the US and the US government, as well … are no longer legitimate, but merely cartels of tyranny and treason most foul.
Despite their best efforts, the aims of these governments are now totally transparent.
They shall have their way … and all of their power rises from the barrel of a gun or the drone in the sky.
Thank you Kevin, and ET, as well.
DW
I’m not sure of source, but there may be an issue of Assange getting asylum, no problem, but that he can’t remain at the Equadorian Embassy itself. So he’d have to depart to theoretically go to Equador, but the Brits will nab him as soon as he’s off the property. That may be how the PTB resolve it, and everyone’s happy (except for Assange).
So you’re suggesting Ecuador more or less acquiesces in this arrangement? Not happily, but that the denouement is pretty much choreographed?
Well, I think so
Someone a moment ago mentioned Cardinal Mindszenty a generation or two ago during the cold war. I suppose that’s fodder for a precedent in a totally consistent world.
The reality may be, nowadays, that Assange simply doesn’t have that cache.
Assange, and a couple of the rest of us, maa8722.
If Assange is placed in an embassy vehicle and taken to an airport, as a person granted asylum, then any who interfere have thumbed their noses at international law and essentially declared that there simply are NO protections which anyone except the officially “recognized” may expect or find any refuge or safety in …
As well, the question of Great Britain’s legitimate “interest” in Assange, in arresting him or holding him, either rests on claims of international law, or it does not … if it does, then the very first order of international law is the protection of those unfairly detained or threatened BEYOND the legal jurisdiction of country which HAS claimed an “interest” in Assange, which can ONLY, at this this point, BE Sweden … not Great Britain and NOT the US, for they have published no open legal claims nor shown legal cause to detain or arrest Julian Assange.
DW
Right. This would be predicated on GB’s insistence they would not let him leave the country for Ecuador, and to avoid bloodshed as these exchanges occur.
I wonder whether the sexual assault charges against Assange have any merit (since I’ve called him a hero above!)
Thank you for your comments here, DW. As so often, you bring the elements of reason and principled clarity to bear on the fundamental issues that face us.
(I also meant to thank you earlier today for your lucid comments on the posting about the “not voting” article which was disappeared by FDL.)
And thank you, Kevin! Indispensable reporting, as always.
It’s time for the Equidorians and all the South Americans to surround the British Embassies. If the Brits invade, shut down the Embassies, throw (gently) the Ambassador and his staff into the street and split all the goodies amongst the people.
Live blog.
Interesting that many of the most recent videos posted on Assange at Youtube are from Latin American contributors, most of them from outside of Ecuador. And almost all are sympathetic to both Assange and Wikileaks.
Should the UK storm the Ecuadorean embassy in London, the fallout in Latin America will be rather larger than they seem to be preparing themselves for.
Please see my comment at 37, DW. (I thought I had clicked Reply so that you were sure to receive my thanks, but apparently I was mistaken.)
Well, I’d agree with you in principle. I wasn’t arguing the merits, just what I think is really is going on. It may be that the situation is totally out of control. We’ll know soon enough.
I thank you for your very kind and encouraging words, madcap, and note that your thoughts, earlier today, indeed always, are much appreciated and deeply insightful, as well as courageous, timely, and deliciously apt.
I honestly consider that we are all most fortunate in the community of humanity and interest which we find here. It is my hope that it shall remain so, and that disagreement, which is inevitable, and even necessary, may be respectful, tolerant, and ever thoughtful.
DW
Yes, as the tyrants seek ever more control … “things” will, more and more, be gang awry …
When the law becomes but a bludgeon, used as the powerful see fit, then humanity must find both conscience and courage, to stand for what is just and needful.
And steadfast, articulated principle, maa, is chief among what is needful and necessary.
DW
Assange is ALLEGED to have committed acts of rape and molestation involving two Swedish women, not–apparently–charged formally, but wanted for questioning in connection with said crimes. A BBC article about it, includes an interview with the Swedish prosecutor:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11785281
Is an attack by a country against a foreign embassy not considered an attack against against the country itself? (This was certainly the way the U.S. government interpreted the storming of its embassy in Teheran in 1979.} And if so, wouldn’t a British assault on the Ecuadorian embassy in London be an absolutely unprovoked attack upon a foreign nation?
I must be more cynical than you.
I hope your vision is fulfilled regarding Assange and the reckless diplomats; however, my hunch is it won’t work out that way for reasons I suggested earlier. I can’t claim otherwise.
I think it will, very likely, “play out”, badly maa.
My wonderment is whether it will suffice to animate more than those who understand elsewhere in the world … in other words, will the US public merely yawn and turn back to Dancing with the Starz and shocking and “awe”-ing about the mindless drivel dished out, daily, by the manipulating, steaming media? … will the United States of Amnesia raise more than a tiny hiccup of “interest”, or will even that brief “shift” overtax the three-minute distention “span”?
I would not say that you are cynical, simply realistic.
I remain hopeful, nonetheless, … that, very eventually, the US public shall bestir themselves sufficiently to resist the coming neo-feudalism … It is a faint hope, I confess, yet the “conversation” is much advanced from what it was fifty years ago …
DW
That’s the model. We haven’t improved on it. Black Marias, though, were better cars.
“Oh…and the ‘rape’ charge that’s smeared Julian Assange’s name around the world? On Thursday James D. Catlin, the Melbourne barrister who represented Assange in London, wrote: Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange.”
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
“Small world, isn’t it? Julian Assange is the human face of Wikileaks – the organization that’s enabled whistle-blowers to reveal hideous war crimes and expose much of America’s foreign policy to the world. He just happens to meet a Swedish woman who just happens to have been publishing her work in a well-funded anti-Castro group that just happens to have links with a group led by a man at least one journalist describes as an agent of the CIA: the violent secret arm of America’s foreign policy.”