Julian Assange Asylum - Ecuador is Right to Stand Up to the US

(two posts - Mark Weisbrot in The Guardian, statement from The
Center for Constitutional Rights)

===

Julian Assange Asylum - Ecuador is Right to Stand Up to the US

    The United States would paint itself as a promoter of
    human rights, but any right to make that claim is long
    gone

By Mark Weisbrot Guardian (UK) August 16, 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador

Ecuador has now made its decision: to grant political asylum
to Julian Assange. This comes in the wake of an incident that
should dispel remaining doubts about the motives behind the
UK/Swedish attempts to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange. On Wednesday, the UK government made an unprecedented
threat to invade Ecuador's embassy if Assange is not handed
over. Such an assault would be so extreme in violating
international law and diplomatic conventions that it is
difficult to even find an example of a democratic government
even making such a threat, let alone carrying it out.

When Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patiño, in an angry
and defiant response, released the written threats to the
public, the UK government tried to backtrack and say it wasn't
a threat to invade the embassy (which is another country's
sovereign territory). But what else can we possibly make of
this wording from a letter delivered by a British official?

    "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."

Is there anyone in their right mind who believes that the UK
government would make such an unprecedented threat if this
were just about an ordinary foreign citizen wanted for
questioning - not criminal charges or a trial - by a foreign
government?

Ecuador's decision to grant political asylum to Assange was
both predictable and reasonable. But it is also a ground-
breaking case that has considerable historic significance.

First, the merits of the case: Assange clearly has a well-
founded fear of persecution if he were to be extradited to
Sweden. It is pretty much acknowledged that he would be
immediately thrown in jail. Since he is not charged with any
crime, and the Swedish government has no legitimate reason to
bring him to Sweden, this by itself is a form of persecution.

We can infer that the Swedes have no legitimate reason for the
extradition, since they were repeatedly offered the
opportunity to question him in the UK, but rejected it, and
have also refused to even put forth a reason for this refusal.
A few weeks ago the Ecuadorian government offered to allow
Assange to be questioned in its London embassy, where Assange
has been residing since 19 June, but the Swedish government
refused - again without offering a reason. This was an act of
bad faith in the negotiating process that has taken place
between governments to resolve the situation.

Former Stockholm chief district prosecutor Sven- Erik Alhem
also made it clear that the Swedish government had no
legitimate reason to seek Assange's extradition when he
testified that the decision of the Swedish government to
extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well
as unfair and disproportionate", because he could be easily
questioned in the UK.

But, most importantly, the government of Ecuador agreed with
Assange that he had a reasonable fear of a second extradition
to the United States, and persecution here for his activities
as a journalist. The evidence for this was strong. Some
examples: an ongoing investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks in
the US; evidence that an indictment had already been prepared;
statements by important public officials such as Democratic
senator Diane Feinstein that he should be prosecuted for
espionage, which carries a potential death penalty or life
imprisonment.

Why is this case so significant? It is probably the first time
that a citizen fleeing political persecution by the US has
been granted political asylum by a democratic government
seeking to uphold international human rights conventions. This
is a pretty big deal, because for more than 60 years the US
has portrayed itself as a proponent of human rights
internationally - especially during the cold war. And many
people have sought and received asylum in the US.

The idea of the US government as a human rights defender,
which was believed mostly in the US and allied countries, was
premised on a disregard for the human rights of the victims of
US wars and foreign policy, such as the 3 million Vietnamese
or more than one million Iraqis who were killed, and millions
of others displaced, wounded, or abused because of US actions.
That idea - that the US should be judged only on what it does
within its borders - is losing support as the world grows more
multipolar economically and politically, Washington loses
power and influence, and its wars, invasions, and occupations
are seen by fewer people as legitimate.

At the same time, over the past decade, the US's own human
rights situation has deteriorated. Of course prior to the
civil rights legislation of the 1960s, millions of African-
Americans in the southern states didn't have the right to
vote, and lacked other civil rights - and the consequent
international embarrassment was part of what allowed the civil
rights movement to succeed. But at least by the end of that
decade, the US could be seen as a positive example internally
in terms of the rule of law, due process and the protection of
civil rights and liberties.

Today, the US claims the legal right to indefinitely detain
its citizens; the president can order the assassination of a
citizen without so much as even a hearing; the government can
spy on its citizens without a court order; and its officials
are immune from prosecution for war crimes. It doesn't help
that the US has less than 5% of the world's population but
almost a quarter of its prison inmates, many of them victims
of a "war on drugs" that is rapidly losing legitimacy in the
rest of the world. Assange's successful pursuit of asylum from
the US is another blow to Washington's international
reputation. At the same time, it shows how important it is to
have democratic governments that are independent of the US and
- unlike Sweden and the UK - will not collaborate in the
persecution of a journalist for the sake of expediency.
Hopefully other governments will let the UK know that threats
to invade another country's embassy put them outside the
bounds of law-abiding nations.

It is interesting to watch pro-Washington journalists and
their sources look for self-serving reasons that they can
attribute to the government of Ecuador for granting asylum.
Correa wants to portray himself as a champion of free speech,
they say; or he wants to strike a blow to the US, or put
himself forward as an international leader. But this is
ridiculous.

Correa didn't want this mess and it has been a lose- lose
situation for him from the beginning. He has suffered
increased tension with three countries that are diplomatically
important to Ecuador - the US, UK and Sweden. The US is
Ecuador's largest trading partner and has several times
threatened to cut off trade preferences that support thousands
of Ecuadorian jobs. And since most of the major international
media has been hostile to Assange from the beginning, they
have used the asylum request to attack Ecuador, accusing the
government of a "crackdown" on the media at home. As I have
noted elsewhere, this is a gross exaggeration and
misrepresentation of Ecuador, which has an uncensored media
that is mostly opposed to the government. And for most of the
world, these misleading news reports are all that they will
hear or read about Ecuador for a long time.

Correa made this decision because it was the only ethical
thing to do. And any of the independent, democratic
governments of South America would have done the same. If only
the world's biggest media organizations had the same ethics
and commitment to freedom of speech and the press.

Now we will see if the UK government will respect
international law and human rights conventions and allow
Assange safe passage to Ecuador.

==========

CCR Attorneys Applaud Ecuador's Decision to Grant Asylum to
Julian Assange

https://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-attorneys-applaud-ecuador%E2%80%99s-decision-grant-asylum-julian-assange

Today, in response to Ecuador's decision to grant political
asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, Center for
Constitutional Rights (CCR) Executive Director Vincent Warren
issued the following statement:

We applaud Ecuador for granting asylum to Julian Assange.
Ecuador's action rightly offers protection to a journalist and
publisher who faces persecution from the U.S. It thereby
strengthens the global commitment to human rights, including
government accountability and freedom of the press. We hope
that Assange's contributions to a robust democratic society
are belatedly recognized by the U.S., which prides itself in
its commitment to a free press.

Granting asylum is a humanitarian act and the UN General
Assembly has unanimously declared that it should not be
construed as unfriendly by other countries. The U.S., Sweden
and the U.K. have adopted and reiterated this very principle
many times. It is imperative, therefore, that no diplomatic
consequences should befall Ecuador over this decision.

We are deeply troubled by the reported U.K. threats to storm
the Ecuadoran Embassy and arrest Assange, in clear violation
of the Vienna Convention's protection of the inviolability of
sovereign embassy properties, and by the menacing police
presence outside the embassy. We call on the British
government to explicitly and immediately confirm that it will
honor international and diplomatic commitments.

The Center for Constitutional Rights represents Wikileaks and
Mr. Assange in the U.S.

[The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to
advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United
States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil
rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and
educational organization committed to the creative use of law
as a positive force for social change.]

==========

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate