UK/Ecuador defuse row, pledge commitment to diplomatic solution for Assange dispute
Britain said it remained committed to reaching a diplomatic solution to the presence of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in Ecuador's London embassy, after both countries took steps to defuse a row over his action in taking refuge there.
Assange has been living in the embassy's cramped quarters for more than two months since fleeing there to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over rape and sexual assault allegations.
The Latin American state's leader said on Saturday that Britain had withdrawn a threat to enter the embassy to arrest Assange, to whom Ecuador has granted asylum, and that he now considered the “unfortunate incident” was over.
President Rafael Correa was responding to a British assurance that it was not threatening the embassy and that Britain was committed to the Vienna Convention, which protects the inviolability of diplomatic premises.
“We remain committed to the process of dialogue we have entered into and we want that to resume with the government of Ecuador,” a British Foreign Office spokeswoman said.
Britain provoked a furious reaction after telling Ecuador that an obscure British law allowed it, under extreme circumstances, to remove the embassy's diplomatic status, exposing Assange to immediate arrest by police.
Ecuador accused Britain of planning to storm the embassy and demanded it withdraw the threat.
Britain said it had not meant to threaten Ecuador, a plea that fell on deaf ears, prompting it to send Ecuador a formal communication on Thursday confirming that the embassy was safe.
The communication was copied to diplomats at a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington on Friday which discussed the spat.
A British diplomat attending the meeting invited Ecuador to resume “constructive discussions” on Assange, the Foreign Office said. “We believe that our two countries should be able to find a diplomatic solution,” the unnamed diplomat added, according to a transcript issued by the Foreign Office.
Britain says it is determined to fulfil a legal obligation to send Assange to Sweden.
Correa responded to the British diplomatic approach by saying in a weekly media address on Saturday: “We consider this unfortunate incident over, after a grave diplomatic error by the British in which they said they would enter our embassy.”
The OAS had condemned the British threat, and South American foreign ministers backed Correa's position that Britain's warning was unacceptable and could set a dangerous precedent.
Suggested Stories
-
Jun 17th 2013
Assange prepared to remain in Ecuadorean embassy in London another five years
-
Jun 17th 2013
Brazilian protestors clash over excessive expenditure in World Cup stadiums
-
Jun 14th 2013
Nicaragua approves transoceanic canal to rival with Panama and to be built by Hong Kong company
-
Jun 14th 2013
Chile and UK hold annual round of defense talks in London
20 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.
Now we would like you to fix a First Class BA ticket to Quito....
And a candlelight dinner with Kate Moss...
Thanks in advance.
ASSANGE.
Mr Burges’ article –a hard to comprehend piece of ‘trendy’ journalism– DOES contain a few elements of honest conjecture, which are perhaps, worth serious consideration. However, he fails to admit the real possibility of Assange’s being illicitly abducted from Sweden or from another country, by an intelligence agency answering to goodness knows whom. We’ve already seen too many cases of such illegal imprisonment, WITHOUT HABEAS CORPUS –‘Extraordinary Rendition’ being a particularly notorious example. Furthermore, Sweden’s recent democratic record is not unblemished. The assassination of that country’s late premier was officially blamed on Libyan state sponsored terrorists but some serious observers disagree with that assumption. And, speaking of the late Col. Gaddafi, the disputed Lockerbee bombing verdict has among its detractors, family members of those killed by the midair explosion of the Pan Am jumbo.
Obviously, no sane person would condone Assange’s ALLEGED sexual misdemeanours but with the published evidence against him in this context now shown to be so weak, I reckon his belief that he’s REALLY being hunted for his role at WIKILEAK, is justified.
SUPREME U.S. MILITARY MIGHT.
Recent history doesn’t support this erroneous affirmation, which ignores the outcome of that country’s bellicose escapades in places such as: Afghanistan, Laos, Somalia, Vietnam and that of its two wars against Iraq, the latter at least of which, was of questionable legality and rationalized by deliberately ‘fabricated’ false UK/US intelligence reports. Without exception, these ill-advised military adventures have ended in their protagonist’s defeat or/and the massacre of many innocent civilians and a miserable legacy for those victims who survived horrendous onslaughts such as ‘Agent Green’ and ‘Shock and Awe’.
Admittedly, most S. American govt’s ain’t got much to write ‘ome about DEMOCRACY but neither have we.
These days, it’s all about economic power –p
the UK should use the RG model.... 'Lets talk about Assange.... ....Assange is ours..........'
Excellent summing up, Jim.
Couldn't agree more.
I don't buy it. You mention the lack of HABEAS CORPUS. Well lets look at this from another viewpoint.
Assange has made serious allegatoins against both Sweden and the USA. Where is his evidence? He's had 2 years to produce it, and nothing.
As a skeptic, I find it hard to believe that the founder of wikileaks, the man who is can get his hands on classified information, can't produce one iota of evidence of this conspiracy.
Not only that but you also say: “Obviously, no sane person would condone Assange’s ALLEGED sexual misdemeanours but with the published evidence against him in this context now shown to be so weak.”
But the published evidence isn't the actual evidence that the Swedish have. No police or prosecution service in the world would release all the evdience they have whilst investigating a crime, as it may prejudice the case against either the alleged perpetrator or the alleged victim.
That's what really annoys me more than anything else, everyone assuming that all this stuff that has been published is the EVIDENCE against Assange, when it isn't.
However, Ecuador is finally realising that they're stuck with a lemon, and don't know what to do about it.
Well the best thing to do, would be to show Assange the door, and allow due process to occur.
Assange will then do what the rest of us mere mortals have to do, and answer the allegations made against him. He is innocent until proven guilty, and it could be that the Swedish authorities don't have enough evidence to bring charges, and maybe they do. But by hiding, Assange isn't going to help his case.
In regards to the USA, we should apply logic to this. Lets look at the options:
a. The USA extradite him they make him into a martyr, and prove his conspiracy, and end up with a world of problems.
b. The USA don't extradite him, he is discredited (and by proxy so is wikileaks) because his whole argument is that the USA is out to get him, and both Assange and wikileaks fade into insignificance.
But let's consider the U.S.A. How many times have Israeli operatives entered another country, abducted an individual and spirited them back to Israel. In one case, the individual was even “executed” in situ. Would anyone doubt that the U.S.A. could do the same? And yet Assange's first bail address was within a few miles of a U.S. airbase. What happened? Nothing. Until recently, he moved around freely in England when he could have been “snatched” at any moment. Could he have finished up inside a completely different embassy, that of the United States? Yes, he could. Could he have been taken covertly into the U.S. airbase and on to a U.S. aircraft? Yes, he could. Why have the Americans not asked the U.K. for his extradition? Assange's “fears” simply do not stand up to examination. And let us not forget his heartfelt message to his wife and children. The wife from whom he is, at the least, separated. The son over whom he had to conduct a custody battle and, demonstrably, lost. And his daughter. All no doubt on his mind as he bedhops around the world. Hope he leaves the (female) Ecuadorian ambassador off his scoresheet!
Re: “I don't buy it. You mention the lack of HABEAS CORPUS. Well lets look at this from another viewpoint”.
Here, we’re dealing with ESTABLISHED FACT, Mate! So there can be no question of personal ‘viewpoints’ ‘cos the law is a matter of corroborated, irrefutable EVIDENCE and –as you rightly say – it ought to be applied to ALL, regardless of creed, political affiliation, race or social status. Furthermore, Assange has already agreed to be questioned by the Swedish authorities, IN THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY. I can’t help feeling that the Swedes have some ulterior motive in not taking this SIMPLE, cost-effective step rather than choosing to waste so much time and taxpayers’ money in the pursuance of their present, sterile policy.
Regarding Assange’s ALLEGED sexual crime. It seems that the man went to bed with a woman and they had consensual sex. Later that night, this ‘demonic monster’ awoke and fancied a second helping. But ‘cos on the latter occasion, he didn’t obtain the female’s specific consent for coitus to take place, he now faces a charge of rape! Come awf it, Mate –you and your cohorts are living in cloud cuckoo land!
For: 7 Conqueror.
Re. “let's consider the U.S.A. How many times have Israeli operatives entered another country, abducted an individual and spirited them back to Israel. In one case...”
Another PROVEN fact and one that’s become public knowledge. Who knows how many OTHERS have occurred COVERTLY?
The only reason I can imagine for the US’s not wishing to pursue Assange is –if he were apprehended and tried– a highly embarrassing affair would be rekindled and from its blaze, a number of further, ‘inconvenient’, toxic truths would exude.
Cheers!
Jim, in Madrid.
Non consensual sex is rape! So what you are saying is that if a woman willingly sleeps with a man once, that gives him carte Blanche to help himself to her whenever he wants! Oh well done, Jim, let's put women's rights back to the dark ages, shall we?
Well no, that is not how the law works, is it? Assange had non-consensual sex with a woman, that's rape. It is irrelevant that he had sex with her previously.
Regarding questioning Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy. Suppose for a moment that the Swedish agree to do it and then believe that they have enough grounds to take him to court. What then? He won't leave that embassy. How will they proceed?
Assange should face his accusers like a man. The longer he hides in the Ecuadorian embassy the more I'm suspicious of the reasons as to why he won't go to Sweden.
Besides this,how can a woman have sex with a man consenually,share the bed and sleep and prove that a second session of sex took place and wasn't consented to.How can she prove that.Doesnt Assange have to admit that or did she have the place bugged or some other trap.
LEP will tell us Sweden wants to hear Assange's story.But why as he obviously denies the accusation.
But our most excellent proponent of repetitive posts acts like an innocent who believes the king has new clothes.
Ah well as it is so it is
Re: “Well no, that is not how the law works, is it? Assange had non-consensual sex with a woman, that's rape. It is irrelevant that he had sex with her previously, etcetera”.
That’s the unsubstantiated ALLEGATION of a self-confessed promiscuous tart. If a woman wishes to behave in such a way, it’s her RIGHT to do so and it’s no-one else’s business. However if the sexual partner –whom she warmly welcomed to her bed just a short while previously– reciprocates her ardour a little later, WHY SHOULD SHE COMPLAIN SO VOCIFEROUSLY? Possibly ‘cos somewhere along the line, she discovers to her delight, that Assange is a very wealthy fellow whom she can milk until he’s dry (no pun intended)
So please do stop posturing with the mock morality of a self-righteous, pseudo politically correct prig!
We’re not ALL naive gnaw-nipples, you know. Some of us are BIG BOYS now!
Cheers!
Jim.
You make your own interpretation of posts if it makes you happy 16#
Welease the wapist they cry. Ecuador then made up a fanciful story playing the victim, a trait that Argenweena does quite well.
If you've a speech impediment it shouldn't affect your writing.
Well I don't think so
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!