Ecuador receives full support from OAS Ministers in dispute with UK over Assange case
The Foreign Ministers of the Organization of American States (OAS) approved last Friday a resolution supporting the inviolability of diplomatic premises, in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in the context of the situation created between Ecuador and the United Kingdom.
“It was a very positive meeting, with a successful outcome: no one was excluded, everyone spoke -including the representative of the United Kingdom-, there were disagreements, but in the end between us we put together a satisfactory agreement,” said the Secretary General of the OAS, José Miguel Insulza. “It showed that the OAS is the foremost hemispheric forum and I think we can all be happy about that,” added Insulza.
For his part the Foreign Minister of Ecuador, Ricardo Patiño, at the conclusion of the meeting, said that “the OAS has demonstrated its important role,” because “an issue of enormous importance for our countries was resolved. It was decided that the rules of international law are still valid, even though some countries are willing to threaten others with violating them.” In a press conference following the meeting of Foreign Ministers, Patiño said that “we feel strengthened by the decision of the OAS, we are sure that the United Kingdom will not carry out its threat.”
“Here it became clear that might does not make right, and that the world is not a jungle, that today's world should be governed by the rules of civilized coexistence, should abide by the rules of international law, and the principles that govern the life of nations. This is a very important victory, above all for Ecuador, because it has expressed solidarity and support for our people and our government, so on behalf of that people and their government I want to thank the representatives of the countries of the Americas,” added Foreign Minister Patiño.
The Chair of the Meeting and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Rafael Roncagliolo said that the countries of the Americas “have reaffirmed our commitment to international law, our ability to express support for a country when threatened and our capacity for dialogue.”
He added “I am pleased to announce with great satisfaction that this meeting of Foreign Ministers of the OAS has strengthened the solidarity between our countries and also fortified the solidity of the organization”.
The six-point resolution was adopted at a meeting in which the Foreign Ministers of Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Venezuela spoke, as well as the heads of delegation of Panama, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, El Salvador, the United States, Grenada, Costa Rica, Dominica, Canada, Suriname, Bolivia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Guatemala, Brazil, Barbados and Antigua and Barbuda, in addition to the delegates from the United Kingdom and Sweden, in their capacity as Permanent Observers.
The resolution from 24 August, 2012 reads as follows:
BEARING IN MIND that in resolution CP/RES 1005 (1863/12), of the Permanent Council of the Organization, dated August 17, 2012, a Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs was convened “to address the situation between Ecuador and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding the inviolability of the diplomatic premises of Ecuador in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in accordance with international law” and “to agree on appropriate measures to be adopted”;
Considering:
That the American states have reaffirmed in the Charter of the Organization of American States that “international law is the standard of conduct of States in their reciprocal relations” (Article 3.a);
That strict compliance is, therefore, essential on the part of all states with the standards that govern the protection of, respect for, and inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions and consular offices, which standards have been codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, in particular, the provisions contained in Article 22 of that treaty; and in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963, particularly the provisions at Article 31 of that treaty;
That the Government of the Republic of Ecuador publicly announced that on August 15, 2012, it received from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland an aide-memoire which states, inter alia, “… that there are legal grounds in the United Kingdom--the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987--that would allow us to take steps to arrest Mr. Assange on the Embassy’s current premises”; and
That the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, on August 16, 2012, announced its decision to grant political asylum to Mr. Julian Assange, who requested it on June 19, 2012, at the Embassy of Ecuador in London,
Resolves:
1. To reiterate the full validity of the principles and standards that govern diplomatic relations among states, especially those that concern full respect for the inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions and consular offices, as recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
2. To reaffirm that those principles and standards constitute fundamental rules for ensuring the peaceful coexistence of all the countries that comprise the international community.
3. To reiterate the full validity of the principles enshrined in international law, such as respect for sovereignty, faithful compliance with international treaties, peaceful settlement of disputes, peaceful coexistence among states, and rejection of the threat or use of force to settle disputes.
4. To reject any attempt that might put at risk the inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions, to reiterate the obligation / of all states not to invoke provisions of their domestic law to justify non-compliance with their international obligations, and, in this context, to express its solidarity and support for the Government of the Republic of Ecuador.
5 To urge the Governments of Ecuador and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to continue to engage in dialogue in order to settle their current differences in accordance with international law, taking into account the statements made recently by authorities of both governments.
6. To entrust the Permanent Council with the due follow-up of this matter.
Suggested Stories
-
May 17th 2013
Uruguay’s José Mujica lauds booming Brazil ties
-
May 14th 2013
New WTO chief says it’s time for ‘modulating’ ambition and pushing protectionism back
-
May 13th 2013
German president in Brazil to promote trade and investments
-
May 18th 2013
Maduro admits to knowing “the IDs and all” of the 900.000 Chavistas who did not vote for him
33 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.
“Diplomatic” asylum is not recognised outside of Latin America.
But the resolution was reworded after the UK insisted it had made no threat.
The BBC's Kim Ghattas said the resolution expressed solidarity with Ecuador but, despite a strong plea from Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, there was no reference to any threat against his country's embassy in London.
The United States withdrew its opposition to the resolution after the text was amended.'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19377110
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19377110
Yes, will done to DR. They hit the nail on the head, Ecuador was hoping to milk Assange asylum for all it was worth... and its worth nothing at all.
Probably not. He is getting himself morphed into the male version of TMBOA!
@5 Vestias. You opinion counts for nothing as you are not keeping to the rules of posting in English. It counts for nothing anyway.
So what have you achieve Ecuador?
Condemnation from the entire EU, the UK and the USA which give you one of the strongest diplomatic slaps in recent history.
And if that isn't enough outside of the diplomatic circle you are been ripped to shreds for continuing to harbor a fugitive wanted for sex crimes against women.
Disastrous decision for the people of Ecuador and the people in power.
When you say that diplomatic asylum is recognized only in South America you are ignoring those European countries that also recognize it. For instance, Hungary, where it has been recognized by a previous Communist administration.
Aug 27th, 2012 - 03:52 pm
Well it wasn't a threat and the OAS have formally accepted that fact so you can get back in your cage. Before you do though, you might want to know that Hungary is no longer a member of the Soviet Bloc and being a progressive democracy for the last 23 years They generally recognise the ICJ policy thus:
“A right of diplomatic asylum is not established in international law. The International Court of Justice has emphasised that in the absence of treaty or customary rules to the contrary, a decision by a mission to grant asylum involves a derogation from the sovereignty of the receiving state. The Organization of American States agreed a convention in 1954.”
The word derogation in this context means that Ecuador is illegaly interfering in the UK judicial system and in a way are themselves de-valuing the Ecuadorian diplomatic mission in London. They have to a degree, undermined their inalienable diplomatic status. The UK informed them of this but never threatened to storm the building even though, in international law, the UK was entitled to do so.
UK is a progressive, grown up democracy and wouldn't do it anyway because the UK understands the diplomatic fallout that this course of action would be potentially disasterous. The mistake that the UK did make was to trust Ecuador with sensitive and classified intergovernmental diplomatic communications. A bit like give a 2 year old child a box of matches and teaching it how to use them. The lesson has been learned and some doors will now be shut to the Ecuadorian diplomatic mission. Ecuador's loss, unfortunate but tough. Never mind I am sure we will get over it.
“4. To reject any attempt that might put at risk the inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions, to reiterate the obligation / of all states not to invoke provisions of their domestic law to justify non-compliance with their international obligations, and, in this context, to express its solidarity and support for the Government of the Republic of Ecuador.”
You can see that the OAS has not “formally accepted” that there was no threat. On the contrary, it has been necessary for the OAS to warn the UK not to do anything that it may regret.
The OAS has not agreed that granting asylum “involves a derogation from the sovereignty of the receiving state”. What you mean when you state that, “The Organization of American States agreed a convention in 1954” I cannot say (the sentence does not parse to a definite statement in English).
I find it interesting that, by implication, you state that the Hungarian government could have stormed a US embassy. I think you will find that the US takes a different view regarding that.
en.mercopress.com/2012/08/27/ecuador-receives-full-support-from-oas-ministers-in-dispute-with-uk-over-assange-case#comment157616: Which “rules of posting in English” are you referring to?
Mercopress is an American paper serving an audience who wish to follow American, and specifically Mercosul, news. Given that, the irony of UK rednecks complaining about a message written in an American language cannot be lost on you!
And if you had the intelligence to read the header, you would find that Mercopress styles itself a “South Atlantic News Agency”. If you get an atlas out you will find that the South Atlantic stretches all the way to Africa. And includes the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Places that will NEVER be American. And certainly not “latino” american. The dregs of the world!
I think he'd take that as a compliment! He's certainly, like her, a good looker =)
Las Malvinas is part of Argentina and, so, America. They will be coming under Argentine administration within 25 years - sooner if a large amount of petroleum is found - so this site is just being forward looking.
Really?
“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,” read the letter. ”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 just where in that letter does it say that Britain is going 'storm' the embassy like Correa claimed?
If we truly wanted to 'storm' the embassy then Assange would be in Sweden now facing Swedish authorities and trying to explain why having non-consensual sex isn't rape in his book.
You see, even the OAS doesn't support Ecuador, they only support the resumption of talks between the UK and Ecuador, and for both countries to sort out the problem.
Well it's easy to sort out the problem. The embassy in London should open its door and hand over Assange to the police. The police will then put him on the next flight to Sweden, where he will face questioning on his activities on the night of the alleged sexual assault.
Then the Swedish authorities will decide if there is enough evidence to bring a case against Assange. Assange will have the right to defend himself in court and the jury will decided, based on the evidence, if he is innocent or guilty. If innocent he will be sent back to the UK to face the music about breaking his bail conditions (probably a hefty fine or suspended jail sentence), if he's found guilty he will be given a prison sentence in Sweden in line with Swedish law.
Either way, the USA couldn't give a fig about him, and why should they? He has staked his reputation on this conspiracy, and when nothing happens he discredits himself.
Even OAS admitted no threat was made and hence the official statement does not include any text about a threat ever been made to such effect.
Either way this political game Ecuador has backfired in the worst way possible for their country, its what is often referred to as a 'diplomatic own goal'
As for OAS, they have no place here and the UK certainly won't be dictated too by some tin pot organization (the UK is far stronger than them combined and has the support of USA/Canada etc) not that they should be involved anyway. However the way this played out was Ecuador trying to curry favor with its own voters and neighbouring countries and found itself in a bad position whereby the UK wouldn't accept them misusing diplomatic powers to harbor a person wanted for alleged sex offenses against women.
You do need to re read the resolutions. When you do you will see that should the UK violate the embassy the countries forming the OAS will act. This will force both the Federal Republic's and France's hands and they will come down on the UK like a ton of bricks.
Given your stupidity with persisting with this 'invading' nonsense in the face of of the evidence you should change your tag.
You defile the memory of the original Hepatia who, from all accounts, kept an open mind.
I suggest 'Prevaricator' or 'The Disingenuous One'. Either would fit you so much better.
this is such a non story...Ecuador is flapping like a child drumming up support for what??? Have UK stormed the embassy...NO?..will they NO so what's all the flapping about, pure show boating and playing to the gallery by the the banana republic. let the police deal with a wanted rapist. maybe SA will become a safe haven for all wanted sex criminals!! You've done the Nazi thing now it's time for rapists
You still cannot face the facts in this matter can you?
1) Assange jumped UK bail issued as a result of the International Arrest Warrant by Sweden over alleged rape charges. Straight away his is guilty of a criminal offence (that of failing to surrender to bail);
2) The coward then runs to the Ecuadorian Embassy, who I have to say, rather foolishly, grant him diplomatic immunity even though International Law does not allow this for common criminals.
3) At no time has Assange denied the allegations. Do you not find that strange?
4) The cnut Correa, seeing an opportunity to get at the UK starts mouthing off as usual, ignoring the International Law implications.
So, where have I not refuted this Correa nonsense?
1) As I understand it Assange has not been charged with any crime.
2) At the time Assange entered the embassy Assange was not under indictment. As far as I know he is still not under indictment. In any case no trial has occurred so how you can call him a “common criminal” is beyond me.
3) What allegations are you referring to? As I say he is not under indictment. There are no allegations to answer. By the way you still have not denied the allegations of beating your wife. Do you not find that strange?
4) I was not aware that the UK was such an important country that Correa, or anybody else, would feel a need to “get at” it. What you must keep in mind is that most people in the Americas have a rather vague idea of where the UK is and it is part of Europe. So, you will see, that the idea of granting asylum in order to anger the UK makes no sense.
Where have you not refuted “this Correa nonsense?” You completely failed to do so in this message:
en.mercopress.com/2012/08/27/ecuador-receives-full-support-from-oas-ministers-in-dispute-with-uk-over-assange-case#comment157889
Instead you resorted to crude ad hominen attacks.
I see you are a liar.
“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,” read the letter. ”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.”
“reminder” my left foot Mr gordito.
Which bit of International Arrest Warrant do you not understand?
Assange was brought before a Magistrate and remanded on bail.
Assange then failed to surrender to bail by entering the Ecuadorian Embassy against International Diplomatic Agreements.
There is no such thing as 'indictment' in UK Law.
Assange had gone through the necessary system under the IAW and became a criminal once he had failed to surrender to his bail (go back to court at the agreed date). Failure to surrender to bail is of course a fact of law and cannot be 'pled out' to use the American term.
Those are the facts.
I shall not be responding to you future posts as you are clearly a troll and do not WISH to use the facts but the cnut Correa fantasy version.
Actually I'm not surprised to learn that there is no such thing as indictment in the UK. The UK seems to think that the whole concept of due process and the rule of law is just some quaint notion. This attitude was shown to the whole world during the Pinochet extradition and the brutal wasting of that young Brazilian man by the state a few years ago - among other incidents.
Assange has not been indicted, charged or convicted of any crime. He is, therefore, not guilty of any criminal offense as you have claimed.
(P.S. You still have not denied the allegation that you beat your wife. Don't you find that strange?)
Your final febrile comment is not worth an answer.
It is like you claiming, by association, something of the Hepatia of Alexandria, only to prove yourself a complete idiot over the jumping bail is not a criminal act.
It is in the UK, perhaps not in Ecuador, unless the cnut Correa says it is.
“What allegations are you referring to? As I say he is not under indictment. There are no allegations to answer.”
You must be a lawyer and utilizing a play on words with the word allegation, as the legal definitive is of course “ an assertion of a fact”. But playing with words is a perversion of reality. Nonetheless, investigatigations do not start without some impetus and the impetus was a criminal complaint that generated an investigation into the criminal compalint of rape and molestation.
You can play a game with words but the fact remains that ja is under investigation by Sweden that was impeded on by ecuador on an unsubstainated notion that ja will be extradicted to the USA to ultimately be put to death.
1-USA has not sentenced a spy to death since WWII.
2-Why did the USA not do anything the entire years years he walked this earth freely, if they wanted him.
3-The USA has not indicted him and in all probabibilty will not.
JA deserves his current reward for not facing the claim and not denying he raped someone. ecuador deserves their lifelong houseguest for interference.
I wish julian a VERY long and content life as a houseguest.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!