Quantcast
Connect with us

Expert: London’s threat to storm Ecuador’s embassy for Assange ‘stupid’

Published

on

Britain is considering using an obscure law to extract Julian Assange from Ecuador’s embassy in London, but law experts say the possibility is slim — and one says London’s actions are “stupid”.

Before it granted asylum to the WikiLeaks founder on Thursday, Ecuador made an angry rebuttal of what it saw as Britain’s threats to invade its embassy in London to arrest the Australian and extradite him to Sweden.

ADVERTISEMENT

British officials insist that its explanations to Ecuador ahead of the asylum decision — “setting out our position”, as they put it — never amounted to a threat to “invade” the embassy.

In a meeting in Quito on Wednesday, Britain’s charge d’affaires reminded Ecuadoran ministers of a British law which can ultimately allow the government to withdraw diplomatic status from any embassy on its territory.

Under the normal rules of diplomacy, an embassy is out of bounds to the host country — but this could cease to be the case at the Ecuadoran embassy if Britain decides to invoke its Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act.

One phrase in the 1987 legislation could be key: it says an embassy enjoys protection under law unless “the Secretary of State (foreign minister) withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to (the) land”.

After Assange was granted asylum on Thursday, Foreign Secretary William Hague dismissed Ecuadoran claims that they had been threatened with an “attack” on the building in London’s exclusive Knightsbridge district.

ADVERTISEMENT

“There is no threat here to storm an embassy,” Hague said. “We are talking about an Act of Parliament in this country which stresses that it must be used in full conformity with international law.”

One British official told AFP that Ecuador had “twisted our words”.

Chris Brown, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics (LSE), said Britain had been “mind-bogglingly stupid to raise the issue in the first place”, regardless of how it was worded.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Anyone with Diplomacy 101, as the Americans call it, would know that it (the threat) would backfire,” he told AFP.

“If you asked a room of my first-year students about what Britain has done, I believe that even they would not have made such a fundamental error.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Police are guarding the exits of the embassy in London’s exclusive Knightsbridge district, but have so far made no move to enter it.

Brown said there was “no chance” that Britain would apply the law and enter the embassy to extract Assange, who Sweden wants to question over accusations of rape and molestation.

“All it did is deflect away from the main point, which is that Assange is wanted for questioning on a criminal charge,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The British government has bumbled into a pointless argument.”

Britain’s Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act was introduced after several outrages over embassies in Britain — most notably, the killing of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher with a gun fired from Libya’s embassy in London in 1984.

The law has only ever been used once, to evict squatters from the Cambodian embassy.

Brown said that he believed the standoff over the Ecuadoran embassy, just round the corner from the Harrods department store, could only end in one way.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I cannot see any other solution to this whole thing than him being put on a (Scandanavian airline) SAS flight to Stockholm,” he said.

Carl Gardner, a former British government lawyer and legal commentator, said that if Britain was determined to carry out its threat to arrest Assange and send him to Sweden it should take drastic action.

“It might be better simply to cut off diplomatic relations with Ecuador, send the ambassador home, close the embassy and arrest Assange after that,” he wrote on his blog.

“Ending diplomatic relations is the major sort of foreign affairs decision I doubt the courts would interfere with,” he added. “But that’d be a major diplomatic call.”

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Rudy Giuliani’s devotion has escorted Trump straight to impeachment

Published

on

"Step by step, [Rudy Giuliani] has escorted President Trump to the brink of impeachment," The New York Times said in a piece following the president's top lawyer and his impact on the scandals facing the 45th president.

Two associates of Giuliani's have already been indicted, Giuliani is under criminal investigation from federal prosecutors, and he was never graced with a top position in the Trump government.

"The separate troubles he has gotten his client and himself into are products of the uniquely powerful position he has fashioned, a hybrid of unpaid personal counsel to the president and for-profit peddler of access and advice," The Times said Sunday.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump supporters lose their minds when church shows Nativity scene in immigrant cages

Published

on

MAGA supporters are losing their minds after a photo of the Nativity scene at Claremont United Methodist Church was posted to Facebook.

The scene depicts Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus separated and put in their own cages, a reference to the families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border. Inside the church, the family is shown as reunited.

Senior minister Karen Clark Ristine shared the image on Facebook with the message hoping that everyone in the United States could see the photo and read the story for Christmas.

"The theological statement posted with the nativity: In a time in our country when refugee families seek asylum at our borders and are unwillingly separated from one another, we consider the most well-known refugee family in the world," she wrote. "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, the Holy Family. Shortly after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary were forced to flee with their young son from Nazareth to Egypt to escape King Herod, a tyrant. They feared persecution and death."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Columnist nails Republicans for only caring about Hunter Biden now that his father is running for president

Published

on

One of the critical questions that must be answered by Republicans, according to one Washington Post columnist, is why they didn't care about Hunter Biden's position at Burisma for so many years.

In a Sunday piece, James Downie asked why Republicans didn't do anything about Hunter Biden five years ago when it was first revealed that vice president's son was on the board of a Ukraine energy company. The House and the Senate were being run by Republicans until this year. They haven't had problems with other partisan investigations against high-profile leaders. There were ten investigations into the Benghazi attacks, three hearings, 29 witnesses, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified for 11 hours. Yet, it was only after Joe Biden announced he was running against President Donald Trump that Republicans discovered an issue.

Continue Reading