Before I am accused of a colonialist, neo-imperialist mentality, may I be allowed to point out that the term 'banana republic' is a precise and literal description of Ecuador? It is one of the largest banana producers in the world and it is a republic.
But, its insertion into the Assange affair has also played to the stereotypes with which Latin America has long been afflicted. The decision to give Julian Assange asylum shows all the signs of rash international grandstanding, the long-term consequences of which have not been thought through. After all, by any objective standard, Ecuador does not have a dog in this fight, as Jim Baker, US Secretary of State under the first President Bush, put it in another context.
No doubt President Correa thinks that he is cutting a Latin American dash, putting him up there with President Chavez of Venezuela, who grabs most of the attention these days. In his stand-off with the UK and Sweden, you can be pretty certain that he will benefit from the support of neighbouring nations, for whom Latin American solidarity is an article of faith.
Given Ecuador's hyperbole, you might think that British gunboats were sailing even now towards Guayaquil. But, the diplomatic note that our man in Quito left with the Ecuadorean Foreign Ministry earlier this week was a model of moderation. It was prompted by justified and well-founded concern that the Ecuadorean government was about to announce that it was granting Assange's request for asylum. The main point of the note was to urge continued quiet diplomacy (which had been going on for the better part of two months) and to avoid any rash decision, which would make a solution infinitely harder. The note also pointed out, as it was reasonable to do, that to give Mr. Assange sanctuary was incompatible with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and an abuse of the London embassy's diplomatic status. It was also reasonable, therefore, to remind the Ecuadoreans of the existence of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, which allows the government to remove diplomatic status from an embassy where it believes this privilege is being abused. It was in this context alone that the note referred to the possibility of arresting Assange on embassy premises. There was nothing whatsoever to suggest that the embassy was about to be stormed by the British police in violation of its diplomatic immunity.
The reaction in Quito has been extreme and hysterical. It started at the top with the President himself, who has warned Britain not to "terrorise" Ecuador. We have also been accused of "barbarism"; and our mild diplomatic note described as "unusual and arrogant". The foreign minister has ludicrously announced that he is calling for an emergency summit of the Organisation of American States to discuss the matter. Behind the deliberately intemperate language, whipping up emotions in the street, there also looks to be cold calculation and a smokescreen for a dodgy political decision cloaked in the hypocritical language of human rights.
The plain truth is that President Correa has led his country into a trap of his own design. The British government will not give Assange safe passage out of Britain. Ecuador is stuck with him indefinitely, the sitting tenant from hell, until either it gets tired of him or Assange himself gets tired of his rear-facing embassy bedsit. The British government need do no more than play the affair long and cool, always keeping open lines of communication into the Ecuadorean government. If there is still a role for diplomacy, it is to find a ladder for Ecuador to climb down without too much loss of face.
And the Americans, the 800 pound gorillas in the room? Who knows whether they will seek to extradite Assange. But, if the choice were between Britain and Sweden, many people would prefer to fight a US extradition request from Stockholm, whether or not from inside a gaol. The irony is that it may be more in Assange's interest to face the Swedish music. By all accounts, assuming he were found guilty of the sex charges, a Swedish prison would be luxury compared with his present accommodation.
Follow Sir Christopher Meyer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SirSocks
Debora Singer: Missed Out: Women, Asylum and the Dangerous Gap in Coalition Policy
But ready to storm a deplomatic premise for somebody who does not even have any changes pending (yes even in Sweden there are no charges against Assange).
So what does the honorable ambassador do. Get down to name calling another countries president and put them in the same line with dictator. Just to remind the Ambassador, do not forget your own history, Mau Mau Massacre, Jalianwala Bag, Iraq etc etc does not allow for holier-than-thou attitudes!
Second, even the Act requires extraordinary circumstances to be present - a threat to public safety or national security, neither of which was at hand. If Sir Christopher talks about hyperbole in Quito, how about the hyperbole in London, dealing with a bail jumper as if he were Osama bin Laden himself is hardly a calm and measured response.
The reaction from Quito was entirely non-surprising and expectable. The note gave them the justification for asylum on a silver plate, and if Sir Christopher and his fellows didn't see that coming, that's worse than failure, it is unmitigated blunder. Not the least, it exposed Britain to a slap from the ICJ and would have seriously reduced its clout when adressing other nations which scoff at international law.
2. The term "banana republic" does not really refer to bananas but rather to countries perceived to be not up to British standards. Bananas are not native to the western hemisphere and are grown in places like Ecuador because it is advantageous for countries like the US and GB. Ecuador exported no bananas prior to 1948. Was it then a "bananaless republic"?
3. Invoking obscure national legislation to justify the violation of diplomatically protected territory would be a dangerous and ill-advised precedent.
Don't forget, this is about a RUBBER and (a eyes on a prominent person starlet), Tart for short, that has written articles such as (seven ways to get even)..........
I would bet right now she is loving the attention, and she accused nobody of ANYTHING......
When a Chinese fugitive was given sactuary in the US embassy China didn't threaten to come in and get him by force. It is impossible to tell whether there is legitimate criminal case against either the Chinese human rights activist or Julian Assange since neither China nor Sweden has offered any proof that either man has commited a crime. Untill such evidence is provided is reasonable to supect that both men are being persecuted for political reasons.
Ecuador can challenge Sweden to provide some evidence that the accusations(not charges) are not politicall motivated. If such proof is produced then Ecuador will look foolish if not then Sweden and the UK will. They already look bad for keeping someone under house arrest for 2 years without even being charged with a crime.
China had very little to lose by allowing him to leave for the US.
The UK has a legal requirement to extradite Assaunge to Sweden, if it does not explore all avenues to comply then it is braking international law.
Yes the local laws that allow the UK to enter the embassy is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and there is little chance of it coming to that, in fact I would suggest that the mention of such a law was a warning to Ecuador not to do anything stupid (like trying to smuggle him out or sending a military presence to guard him) because that WOULD give the UK grounds to go in.
This whole issue is stupid since the UK has the right to break diplomatic relations with Ecuador if it chooses. Then Ecuador's diplomats would go home leaving Assange for the police.
Hell, they could even pay for it out of petty cash. Economy class, of course.
Then everyone will be happy. Surely.
(And incidentally, it is standard practice for officers to be sent to question overseas witnesses. Extradition is NOT the standard practice for questioning - it is an expensive and lengthy process. Thus a last resort.)
More: It's the other way round: It's a special privilege for Swedish authorities that someone not a Swedish citizen and not within Sweden complies with their "orders" when in fact, they hold no authority over them. It's one thing to file an international arrest warrant for a wanted criminal. For someone who has not yet been charged but is merely wanted for questioning, it is every bit as much posturing and egomanical "I will not budge out of principle" showmanship as Assange produces it.
Latin America is cutting their umbilical chord to the US. Remember the OAS conference at Cartgagena? Sure you do, that's where the scandal with the prostitutes was. But it was also an OAS conference where Obama left without signing the conference protocol because there was a move to readmit Cuba.
Ecuador is one of the weaker partners in Latin America, but they are not alone. Apparently Russia foreshadowed that no British diplomat and embassy would be safe if Britain withdrew diplomatic status from the Ecuadorian embassy.
Britain doesn't need to spend millions on guarding the embassy. Assange knows full well that wherever he is outside, someone will ogle the hunter's trophy. Trotzky and Guevara spring to mind.
Whatever the quality of accommodation, it could not be any worse than what people tell of Sweden's prison for non-Swedes. He would go straight there, no bail. It is said to be full of unsavoury characters from exotic countries and committing suicide would probably be better than going there. Taking a stroll in the park may not have priority for Assange.
Sir Christopher may have moved a little too long in privileged circles to fathom the issue. Discussing an issue without regard for cost is one of those traits.
Nice try, though.