Julian Assange: can Ecuador's embassy be stripped of its diplomatic status?

[struggle4progress]

By law British ministers do have the power to de-recognise Ecuador's embassy, but not without a serious diplomatic fallout
Carl Gardner
Thursday 16 August 2012 07.14 EDT

The 1987 Act does indeed give ministers a power to withdraw recognition from diplomatic premises ...

Ecuador could judicially review any proposed withdrawal: I think the effect on Assange means this is the type of case in which, as Lord Sumption explained in a recent speech, the courts would consider intervening in a foreign policy decision. Perhaps Assange could obtain an injunction on judicial review, preventing any arrest pending the outcome of proceedings. Of course, if the government successfully fought off that judicial review, the arrest could go ahead. But I don't think a defence would be easy, and at the very least, a judicial review would create further delay – which probably suits Assange fairly well. I'm not sure giving him a hook to hang one on would be the best tactical move for the government ...

If I were advising the government, I think I'd say that, if ministers are determined to allow the arrest of Assange, it might be better simply to cut off diplomatic relations with Ecuador, send the ambassador home, close the embassy and arrest Assange after that. Ending diplomatic relations is the major sort of foreign affairs decision I doubt the courts would interfere with. But that'd be a major diplomatic call ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-diplomatic-status-ecuador-embassy?newsfeed=true

[radhika]

1. I have heard NO nations stand in support of Ecuador's sovereignty

neither did the United Nations. The Assange case is getting scant coverage in US media - and virtually NONE of the coverage I've heard explores the US role in this drama.

Amy Goodman's Democracy Now had good breaking coverage of this event as it was unfolding.

http://www.democracynow.org/topics/julian_assange

[tama]

2. To begin with, internet is also public media

What we are doing e.g. here on DU is public media, and Assange case is getting quite a lot of coverage. Even though corporate media is much deluded over it's own importance does not mean we who participate in lateral Internet media communities need to share that delusion.

Second, is Ecuador's sovereignty now somehow in dispute? The British threat to invade Ecuador's Embassy has been met with wide condemnation and support from nowhere, and OAS has been called to meet to discuss and respond to that threat. Latest I saw was Russian condemnation of threats to violate Vienna Convention.

As for the usual, very predictably after the decision Ecuador and Correa have been untruthfully slandered by the usual culprits, Euro-American neocolonialists suffering from their ever so boring and badly outdated supremacy hallucinations.

[MissMarple]

3. +1

[Fumesucker]

4. Why?

What is so damn vital about making sure Assange is forced to Sweden that it's worth the rather drastic step of breaking diplomatic relations?

[struggle4progress]

5. On your theory, any citizen of country Z, who is wanted for criminal prosecution in country Y,

but who is currently in country X, can escape extradition from X to Y, simply by appearing at country W's embassy in X and pleading that there is some evidence he might later be prosecuted in country V? That would be a splendid rule, from the point of career criminals active in several countries: nyah! nyah! nyah! you can't send me to Y for prosecution because V might want me later!

Or do you hold the more sweeping theory, that international law should be rewritten to allow any country W's embassy in country X to shelter whatever fugitives it ewants from the courts of X? Such a view did persist widely, about four hundred years ago, until it was found to be unworkable and was abandoned. But it does seem to offer a attractive source of income to corrupt ambassadors: Are things gettin kinda hot for ya here in X? for $25K a month ya can hang out here in W's beautiful embassy!

[Fumesucker]

6. I asked a question, I advanced no theory at all.

Now answer the question, why is this particular case so different that boringly normal procedure of the detective(s) traveling to question the suspect has been turned on its head to the point that Britain is willing to provoke an international incident in order to change that normal procedure?

[struggle4progress]

8. If we adopt the theory, any citizen of country Z -- who is wanted for criminal prosecution

in country Y, but who is currently in country X -- can escape extradition from X to Y, simply by appearing at country W's embassy in X and pleading that there is some evidence he might later be prosecuted in country V, that would be a great help to career criminals active in several countries: nyah! nyah! nyah! you can't send me to Y for prosecution because V might want me later!

If we adopt the more sweeping theory, that international law should be rewritten to allow any country W's embassy in country X to shelter whatever fugitives it wants from the courts of X -- a theory that was widely held, about four hundred years ago, until it was found to be unworkable and was abandoned -- then embassies would offer a attractive source of income to corrupt ambassadors: Are things gettin kinda hot for ya here in X? for just $25K a month ya can hang out here in W's beautiful embassy!

[Fumesucker]

9. Assange is wanted for questioning at this time, not prosecution.

Plus you've been obsessing over Assange for far longer than just his stay in the Equadorian embassy so your post and "theory" is just so much distraction from the actual issue which is this: Why does Sweden not follow normal established procedure and send an investigator to question him at his current location?

I predict you will not answer my question.

[struggle4progress]

10. "... As a matter of fact, looking at all the circumstances ... this person passes the threshold

of being an “accused” person and is wanted for prosecution ..."
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

So even your first sentence is factually incorrect, as determined by thorough litigation in the UK courts:

[HooptieWagon]

7. Another idle threat by the US lapdog.

UK is looking increasingly silly. 23 Latin American countries are backing Ecuador... UK presumably has embassies in all. Does UK really want to lose all diplomatic presence in all of Central and South America? And of course this silliness also serves as a reminder of UK's agreement to give asylum to Augusto Pinochet, not one of S.America's most popular ex-leaders.
So as Latin America sheds colonial shackles and flexes their muscles, UK and Swedish govts increasingly appear as pathetic and weak puppets of the US. I'm sure that will play well with their citizens.