Ecuador willing to resume talks once UK withdraws ‘threat’ regarding embassy
Ecuador has been, and is open to dialogue to the UK if London withdraws its “threat” to raid the embassy in London to arrest Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, according to Ecuador’s Foreign minister Ricardo Patiño who revealed that the two countries had been holding bilateral discussions on the issue for the last two months.
“We have been talking with the UK for the last two months and the final reply was a threat. We hope the threat is deposed and with great pleasure we will resume talks; we have no problems with the UK; this is what we said from the very beginning but with a threat the game is different”, said the Ecuadorean Foreign Affairs minister Ricardo Patiño.
“Currently there are not talks with the UK because Ecuador is a sovereign country and makes its own sovereign decisions”, revealed Patiño from Guayaquil following the ministerial meeting of ALBA countries in Guayaquil.
The Bolivarian Alliance of our Americas is an organization of South and Central American countries plus from the Caribbean masterminded by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and his generous oil handouts.
“We were talking to see if it was possible to obtain some sort of guarantee statement for the life of Assange, that he would not be extradited to a third country”, said Patiño. “We trusted discussions were based on mutual respect but when this was lost, of course conditions to sit and talk are now far more limited”.
Patiño claimed that last Wednesday the UK “threatened” via a letter to break into the embassy in London to arrest Assange and have him extradited to Sweden where he is under investigation for alleged sexual crimes, which he denies.
“The threat is still pending and has not been withdrawn” said Patiño who added that once it is withdrawn “we will gladly resume talks but respectfully”. He said Ecuador is not a country that can respond with violence, but “certainly with the solidarity from other nations”.
“We don’t want more threats, we want dialogue, we can talk about whatever the UK wants but dignity, sovereignty is not for sale, is not negotiable, is not discusses. What you discuss are political issues and we are willing to do that” indicated Patiño who nevertheless pointed out that trade and cultural relations with the UK should not be affected by this issue.
However Patiño did not discard that if Mr Assange is not granted safe passage through British territory, Ecuador could appeal to international courts.
Meantime Spanish former magistrate Baltasar Garzón said on Sunday that his client, Julian Assange, under refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London was demanding minimum guarantees to reply to Swedish authorities for the alleged sexual crimes of which he is accused in that country.
Garzon, who gained headlines in Spain for his work in favour of human rights, both condemning the police forces and the ETA guerrillas, has been trying by all means to avoid having Assange sent to Sweden since it is feared he could then be extradited to the US, which is the country most affected by Wikileaks filtrations and where he runs the risk of been condemned to the death penalty.
Suggested Stories
-
May 17th 2013
Uruguay’s José Mujica lauds booming Brazil ties
-
May 18th 2013
Maduro admits to knowing “the IDs and all” of the 900.000 Chavistas who did not vote for him
-
May 15th 2013
Paraguay on Independence Day blasts Argentina and Brazil over “power resource exploitation”
-
May 14th 2013
New WTO chief says it’s time for ‘modulating’ ambition and pushing protectionism back
68 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Also amazing to watch Ecuador president preach freedom of speech and non intervention in other Countries affairs. Have never seen such hypocrisy since Gaddafi and Mugabe in their prime. Its truly inspiring.
And the poor old Foreign Office, usually such a gutless load of old farts, completely messing up and having to explain why UK continues to provide economic aid to Ecuador, a Country that hates the UK almost as much Argentina.
Anyway loving the involvement with Ecuador and just looking forward to the next performance or perhaps the next exchange.
The UK has had reasonable and friendly diplomatic relations with Ecuador in recent times and some though fairly insignificant trade. Diplomats from both countries held talks in order to try to look at all possible options for a solution. One of the option under UK law was mentioned in the minutes of the meeting. NO THREAT to use it was ever made.
Cue Correa - facing an imminent election and puppy dog of Chavez - to twist this into an opportunity to create a circus. You are right that populist presidents love the drama. And that might just be where they lose world opinion because the facts do not support their dramatics.
It might also be worth noting that Assange is very manipulative and most probably has the Ecuadorians eating out of his hand.
Remember, NO THREAT was ever made. What you are believing is pure propaganda.
“Right to life” Who has threatened to kill him ? A request has been made by the Swedish authorities for his extradition to Sweden to answer charges of rape. As we consider the Swedes as a civilised country with an uncorrupt judicial system, the request was granted. Mr. Assange was not imprisoned, but released on bail. He broke his bail conditions and is liable for re-arrest. So he does a runner and finds a banana republic to offer him asylum. The UK is now supposed to say OK to this. He has a warrant out for his arrest from the British judicial system - not the UK government. To think that Ecuador has granted him asylum because they are believers in free speech is nonsense. It's partly macho posturing by the president to boost his “reputation” with the Latams by two fingering the “Gringos”
In all his statements Assange has omitted to say anything about these charges but that it is a collusion between the UK, Sweden and the USA to get him to America. Where is his evidence for this ?
If found not guilty in Sweden then I am sure that they would be delighted to get shot of him to Ecuador.
@4 I do wish you understood about embassies. They are not sovereign territory. ”Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.“ Incidentally, the flat occupied by the Ecuadorians is not an ”embassy“. It's a ”chancery“. The ”embassy” is the accredited individuals.
Of course it was a threat :)
If you think the WHOLE of SA are prepared to break diplomatic ties with the UK for the sake of Julian Assange then you're as deluded as that badly dressed tranny you so pathetically fawn over.
Latin American leaders make anti-British statements in favour of Ecuador for reasons of their own internal policy. But when it comes to the crunch, with the exception of Chavez and his groupies in Argentina and Bolivia, no country will be eager to enter into a serious diplomatic spat with Britain and Ecuador will find itself diplomatically isolated.
Sure, and how much do you care about Arg laws? Not much, do you?
Same with us, should you write your domestic laws in toilet paper, mayhap we could find a good use of it, otherwise, we don't really care...
It's a little thing called curtesy. You wouldn't know about stuff like that.
The British and Ecuadorians were discussing options. It was mentioned as one of those options (which could've allowed the Ecuadorians to get out of this without egg on their face), but NO threat to STORM the embassy was ever made.
This is where Ecuador has shot itself in the foot. Because they have now flouted international law by harbouring a criminal, blown out of all proportion a suggestion made by the British, and now are walking around with a load of egg on their faces.
But what does that matter. Assange will stay in their embassy until he dies, or more likely the Ecuadorians get fed up of him and kick him out.
But we in Britain can be patient. The is no statue of limitations in Britain so even if he doesn't leave the embassy for 20, 30 or 40 years, he will still be arrested for breaching his bail upon exit.
Sweden also doesn't have a statue of limitations, so he will still be extradited to Sweden to face these accusations.
But in the meantime, Ecuador have to feed him, house him, look after his health (gosh what if he needs hospital treatment, he'll have to leave the embassy then, won't he?), and listen to his constant self-righteousness.
I actually feel sorry for the embassy staff. Poor sods.
By the way Guzz, I'm still waiting for you to produce one shred of evidence about this conspiracy Mr Assange has dreamt up to try and get him a 'get out of jail free card'. You know that conspiracy that you lap up like a good little puppy. Gosh, I really didn't take you for the gullible sort...oh wait, your a Malvinista, so you are the gullible sort.
Still waiting though...
As you obviously have the disc on repeat I will have to copy paste my answer from the other post...
Proof of what allegations? It is my firm belief that USA is after Assange's neck. Call it a theory. As with any theory and belief, there are no proofs, as with proofs it would be a FACT, and not a theory (or a belief). You don't believe in facts, you accept them, or you don't. Theories are free for all to believe in or not. The second the theory is prooven, it passes on to become a FACT.
Furthermore, nobody is charging USA or Sweden for their behaviours, nor is anyone calling them for a hearing, hence there is nothing to proove.
The day someone takes them to court, the burden of evidence will lay at the prosecutor.
Same with Assange, charge him and take him to court, or don't and let him be.
You are still free to think he is guilty, you are not obliged to proove your beliefs.
But in a court, that's the way it's done.
And next time you ask, this is what you'll get. Should you need help understanding it, I will be honoured to guide you through it.
Yes this could escalate but where do you think it would end. Don't think for one minute that any Country in South America trades with the UK because they like us. They trade because it makes sense for them to do so ie it is to their advantage. They won't throw that away for Mr Assange. Anyway Embassy's and all that crap are out dated and only exist to provide jobs for the corrupt or well connected.
You've made serious allegations against the US and Sweden. That's libel. Where is your proof?
You have none. You just want the US to be up to something because it suits your ego so you can prance around telling everyone about how the big bad evil Americans are bulling the poor innocent blah, blah, blah.
Yet you, wikileaks, Mr Assange or anyone else has produced one shred of evidence to support your LIES. LIES. Don't you know that you shouldn't lie Guzz? It's bad for your soul.
Your belief isn't proof. As I stated on another thread, everymorning I get the bus into work and there is a man who is always telling me how he gets abducted by aliens on a regular basis. I mean, it is possible, isn't it? But without proof why should I or anyone else believe him? I asked him to provide proof once, and he couldn't, just mumbled some excuses.
You are just like that man, Guzz. Makiing wild accusations with no basis in fact, and you are unable to produce one shred of evidence to support this mythical conspiracy theory.
I call him the 'nutter on the bus', harmless but entertaining.
From now on I'll call you the 'nutter on the internet', harmless, but not nearly as entertaining as bus man.
Ricardo Patiño is a political appointee and his qualifications to be a diplomat are absolutely zero. It is very unlikely that he is respected by Ecuadorian career diplomats but he, too, has an even bigger chip on his shoulder.
@13 You can have arg laws within arg jurisdiction. In case you're wondering, the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands aren't within arg jurisdiction. Anybody who wants to overturn that physically has a death wish. And WE can oblige.
@16 Seems you're short on brain power (no surprise). Britain is trying to place Assange in a position where he can be investigated and, if appropriate, charged and brought before a court. For the time being, a bunch of slimy LatAm criminal gangsters are trying to help him evade that. Assange doesn't like investigations or courts. They try to get him to show PROOF. EVIDENCE. No rhetoric, no appeals to emotions, no lies. FACTS: Assange “persuaded” Bradley Manning to breach his oath and loyalty to his country for Assange's financial benefit. “Stinky” Assange forced himself upon 2 women in breach of Swedish law. (Women are agreed that Assange makes no effort at bodily hygiene). He then runs to Britain and is arrested. After exhausting every avenue of British law (where'd the money come from?), he runs. So let us have him, send him to Sweden, have him investigated and tried in a court with jurisdiction. Is there some reason why he shouldn't be determined to be the piece of narcissistic scumsh*te he obviously is? Too much like yourself, perhaps?
Sweden and USA have NO extradition treaty.
UK and USA DO have an extradition treat.
Ergo: It would be simpler for USA to ask UK to extradite Mr. Assange, if the USA wanted him, than to fight for extradition from Sweden!!
Seems simple to me, if the Yanks wanted Mr. Assange for some crime, which at the moment they apparently don't as the haven't made any effort to get hold of him, they would have followed the easiest route!!!!!
QED the conspiray theory is WRONG!!!!!
The only problem is that the Colombian Embassy is right next door and maybe Assange could slipped over the corridor - I wonder if this has been considered.
Name them?
Read and weep dickheads
Aussie sunshine do rgenweener not have consulates all over the world then or just us, do most countries in the world bar a few not have consulates in most countries of the world, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Not only does Sweden have TWO extradition treaties with the USA, but they also have this convenient law that allows them to extradite people without them being charged.
there is no threat,
ecuador is using it just to be anti british, like the rest of them,
perhaps this man, should stop the threats against us, or the burning of british flage,
perhaps he is the one that needs to stop acting stupidly, be fore any talks take place, if any,
S.A could get their aid from the Chav.
Falkland Islands don't need hand outs. Watch out for some fantastic news.
Hand outs are for Muppets.
[i could well be wrong]
but they are//were ecuador and argentina,, and this has been stopped, [we hope]
Sweden may have 2 extradition treaties with the US, but if Assange is extrdited from the UK, he can't be subsequently extradited from Sweden without UK permission. So a) the US would gain nothing by this subterfuge and b) the only thing Assange loses by going to Sweden is he has to face a rape allegation.
Yes, temporary surrender/conditional release regime - or for the common folk, extradition on loan basis.
Doesn't apply when the subject has been extradited from another country; Sweden has to respect the extradition agreement.
Well, the law explicit says it is to be used should a 3rd party ask for extradition for a person extradited to Sweden, so I don't understand when you mean it would apply, other than when the Swedes themselves says it does...
If the UK extradites a person to Sweden on a Swedish arrest warrant, Sweden can only subsequently extradite the person to the US if the UK agrees.
This has a number of consequences :
- there is no benefit to the US in concocting some cockamamie scheme to get Assange to Sweden to avoid the need for UK consent. Worse, there are now two legal systems and endless opportunities for lawyers to introduce delays
- If Assange's aim is really to avoid extradition, he'd be better off in Sweden
It kind of suggests there's something else he's afraid of. I wonder what that could be.
If UK extradites a person to Sweden, the Swedes can further extradite that same person to a 3rd party without asking the UK. It is called temporary surrender, check it up.
That is a provision of the Swedish-US bilateral treaty. Curiously enough, the same arrangement also exists in the UK-US bilateral treaty. But the extradition between UK and Sweden is governed by EU Human rights legislation, and it is that requires UK consent before Sweden could further extradite anybody to the US.
Wikileaks has prooved that Sweden allowed USA to transport people for torturing, disregarding Human Rights legislations all over the world, not only the EU one...
Not the point, Guzz. The point is that Sweden can't extradite Assange anywhere without UK permission. (see Article 15 of the Convention: conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/024.htm)
Which means that the whole theory that it is easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK falls down. IT is in't easier, it is in fact demonstrably more difficult, since two legal systems now have to sign it off.
As far Sweden's complicity in extraordinary rendition goes, there was I believe one case where the Swedish security police cooperated with the CIA, and when the politicians found out about it, they went apeshit and passed legislation to stop it happening again. Sweden now inspects US flights.
The UK, as we all know, is likely to be more amenable to this kind of thing, and indeed has the same legislative provision as Sweden does.
So why on earth would the US concoct a conspiracy to extradite Assange through a more difficult route than one through its closest ally? And why would they concoct a crime which is so difficult to prove? And not even the most serious category of rape that exists under Swedish law?
And most importantly, if Assange has nothing to fear on the rape accusations, why fight extradition so hard when he'd actually be safer from the US there than in the UK?
Sweden would sacrifice its Human Rights reputation to save us a little bit of international oppobrium?
Come on kid, you're really scraping the barrel now.
And you still haven't answered why St Julian fought so hard to stay within one jurisdiction when he had nothing to lose and everything to gain by bringing in two. If he was innocent.
Assange isn't charged, and while he was in Sweden he offered the Swedes to hear him, they didn't. He then asked for permission to leave the country, which was him granted. Furthermore, after some US politicians asked for his trial in USA, he agreed to a hearing in Sweden with the guarantee of not being extradited to USA, Sweden refused. Assange then offered Sweden to hear him in the UK. Sweden refused, even though hearings in foreign nations is common.
Assange has offered Sweden several solutions while thinking of his own security. He is a man that knows more than you and I what those beasts are capable of.
Why wont Sweden charge him if they have proofs? No defendant is obliged to testify anyway, they don't need his words.
Sweden is not a place people “on the run” generally run from. Especially not to the UK if they want to avoid some waterboarding in Gitmo (Try US lapdog).
A purely political move by Ecuador, who clearly don’t share the same concern about the rights of the press in their own country.
Net effect is Assange is “special renditioned” to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for an indeterminate period. Ecuador feeding him, Britain watching him, and the Americans pissing themselves laughing.
Salman Rushdie has more freedom, and Assange hasn’t even been charged with anything yet, much less start any sentence. That is all still to come, one way or another, sooner or later.
E’s not the Messiah; E’s just a very naughty boy.
Ecuador got played, pure and simple, mixin it up with the big boys now.
Anyway, taking your terminology, you've yet to explain why the US wouldn't prefer just to deal with its lapdog, when its lapdog has the final word on any Swedish extradition process anyway. What, for the US, is the point of the extra step through Sweden? Why the risks and complexity of cooking up a rape allegation? And why, if Assange considers UK a safer haven that Sweden, would he not go to Sweden to clear his name, when he would still be protected by the UK's veto on any further extradition?
As for the rest, you are (I think deliberately) confusing the Swedish system with the Anglo Saxon system. In the Swedish system, formal indictment only occurs at a late stage after the investigation process. The UK court found that Assange was wanted, not just for interrogation, but as an accused person with probable cause, so that the investigation process could be concluded and formal charges laid. Anything else would be a breach of Swedish law.
See: www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
And as for St Julian's offer of solutions to the Swedish prosecutor :
”In Hurtig's (defence counsel) “proof” (or prepared) witness statement, he had said “astonishingly [the prosecutor] made no effort to interview [Assange] on the rape charge to get his side of the story” whilst Assange was still in Sweden. This was a highly important statement, but it was completely untrue. Indeed, in the sort of criticism rarely made by an English judge, it was held that Hurtig had deliberately sought to mislead the court on this point. The effect of this was catastrophic for the Assange case ..... as District Judge Riddle concluded, it would have been a reasonable assumption for the prosecutor to make that Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation.”
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/02/assange-eaw-sexual-sweden
Try reading the whole articles, btw, left wing press too.
All fine you give Assange your guatantees that he wont be extradited to USA, but I suspect he wants it from Sweden, or the UK mayhap. If it is as you state, I'm sure they would have no issues in granting him his wishes. On the other case... He's better off in the embassy. Cheap points for SA as well ;)
No country with a credible legal system either could or would guarantee blanket immunity against extradition to anybody, and especially not when no extradition request has even been presented. You'd need to find some kind of banana republic with an agenda of its own and a willingness to overlook a rape allegation to get a deal like that.
But you're right about points though, the whole episode has been as well played by the Ecuadoreans as it has been mishandled by the Brits. The Swedes must be mightily pissed off at Hague. I do find it rather depressing that so many in SA and indeed the UK and Sweden are ready to be played in this way, but there's no doubt it's a good day for gringophobes everywhere, if point scoring is what you care about most.
Probably a bad day for wikileaks itself, though. Any future whistleblower with a brain in their head will look long and hard at the prospect of becoming a tool for Julian. Here's hoping that openleaks, for example, will provide a credible alternative.
Argenweena does the same thing, if it didnt regularly spout lies at the UN about its fake claims in Falklands nobody would know who they are!!
Well apart from the stories of loan defaults, hyper inflation and economic collapse , and throwing nuns out of airplanes.
#54 Not heard of openleaks before, I wish them well but if they become effective do you really think America will just sit back and let them expose its secrets?
#57 Between global warming and the decline of the British state you may get your wish! =)
No, I don't think America will just sit back and let openleaks expose its secrets. I don't think any other government in the world would either.
But it doesn't follow from this that Sweden is corrupt, Assange is innocent, and his accusers agents of the CIA.
These “secrets” being Weatern nations commiting crime against humanity, killing wonen and children, torturing people and stealing natural resources. How is that not being corrupt? And yes, Sweden was a part of the Guantanamo passage.
“Galloway is a good man” ?. We learn something new every day.
His nickname of Gorgeous George should give some idea of the esteem in which he is held... He is a self seeking publicist.
If he thought he could get publicity, he would do the hokey cokey outside the Saracen's head. Being a Scot, you would be able to tell us what and where this is located
This may come as a surprise to you, but there was whistleblowing long before there was wikileaks, there will still be wikileaks after Assange, and there will still be be whistleblowing long after wikileaks.
The biggest Iraq scandals, Abu Graib for example, was nothing to do with wikileaks, and what wikileaks did expose was mostly diplomatic tittle tattle and other stuff that was no big news to anybody anyway. The price that Bradley Manning is being made to pay for it far exceeds the value of any revelations that emerged, and the credit that Assange grabbed is largely undeserved, in particular due to the grossly irresponsible way he put informants in Afghanistan in harm's way.
Otherwise, and as we already discussed, it is well known that certain elements in the Swedish security police colloborated in one rendition episode in 2005. This is because it was the Swedish authorities themselves who exposed this and shut the damn thing down. They are certainly a safer haven than the UK is in this regard.
I am not aware, however, of Sweden killing women and children, torturing people, and stealing natural resources, but I guess it's always possible. What I don't understand is how Sweden's appalling crimes of this nature exonerate an Australian from a a rape charge without it going to court.
I too expect Assange to face those charges, he is after all a suspect, but I don't believe in prooved criminals...
There are plenty of Swedish passport holding citizens of Uruguay, have you ever wondered why? the same country your trashing for so called human rights is the same country that took in your beaten and socially abused citizens that your own government handed out and handed over to other SA countries for more of the same, think a little bit history wise before you slag off. You are becoming notorious for blanking out not so tasty history in your increasingly limp rants.
You are spending way too much time in the past. Sweden of the early 80's was and is an example to the world as to how socialism should be implemented. Allemansrätten and the social welfare they achieved during that period is unseen before and the most important is that they did so while giving rights to its citizens, not removing them.
In the 90's the liberal boom hit Sweden, and the socialdemocracy tried to adapt, resulting in them doing their best to run the blue agenda. A golden age for the bankers, as politicians on both wings worked their case.
No BC, a lot of water have passed under the bridge since Sweden was a true example of socialism.
I admire the Swedish order and it's institutions. They have a touch of knowledge over them, and I thank my second nation for doing its best to adapt an old tradition in a multi cultural world. Every second stroke of my heart beats for Sweden. That does not affect the truth though...
And your point is? I'm assuming that you don't want add any weight to the fact that Sweden took in your beaten and humiliated polical refugees but when it wants to put on trial a man suspected of sexual crimes (note suspected, nothing has been proved) it is the axes of evil? Throw me bone my friend I'm confused? Surly you don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because you feel the need to support another Latin American country, who seems to spend more time shipping Belerussian political targets to possible death and offering the hand of safety to a man to earn cheap points against the States. You are surely more intelligent than taking sides on geographical lines.
Surely they should be in their native land helping to build up the economy.
We keep getting told how rubbish the UK is and how wonderful Argentina is so why are they exiles ? Why did they leave paradise ?
Chris mentioned something about pensions, otherwise, I wouldn't know...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!