TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 11 °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

Ecuador and UK ‘must seek mutually acceptable solution’ on Assange case

President Rafael Correa says the two countries are returning to dialogue over controversy surrounding the WikiLeaks founder.

Julian Assange delivering a statement from the Ecuadorian embassy in London last weekend.
Julian Assange delivering a statement from the Ecuadorian embassy in London last weekend.
Image: Sean Dempsey/PA Wire

ECUADORAN PRESIDENT Rafael Correa said he believed his country had overcome a diplomatic spat with Britain over its threat to enter the Ecuadoran Embassy in London in order to arrest Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

“We believe that this unfortunate incident is over,” said Correa. “It was a mistake for the British Foreign Office to say that they would enter our embassy.”

“It’s good that the United Kingdom has given up its threat,” he continued. “Now we act as if we never received it. We must seek a mutually acceptable solution of the case of Julian Assange through dialogue.”

The president added that he was glad the two countries “were returning to the path of dialogue and were looking for a consensual solution without abandoning our principles.”

Assange is facing rape and sexual assault allegations from two women from Stockholm. Having exhausted all his legal options in Britain to avoid extradition to Sweden, he walked into the Ecuadoran embassy on June 19 and claimed asylum.

The 41-year-old Australian fears he would be passed on to the United States, which he enraged by releasing a vast cache of its confidential government files.

With Assange holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, British Foreign Secretary William Hague pointed out to Quito an obscure 1987 law under which its police could enter the mission and extract Assange.

- (c) AFP, 2012

Assange calls on US to drop ‘witch-hunt against WikiLeaks’ >

Ecuador says attempts to storm embassy ‘would be suicide’ >

Read next:

Comments (11 Comments)

  • Imagine if the Chinese government threatened to storm the US embassy in Beijing to extract Chinese dissident, Chen Guangcheng, who had sought asylum in the US earlier this year. All the NATO countries and Japan would probably recall their ambassadors. Fortunately, the Chinese government made no such threat.

    Here we have had David Cameron and William Hague make such a threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy to extract Western dissident, Julian Assange. They have not withdrawn the remark either on their own initiative (like an adult would withdraw an inappropriate remark upon reflection) or in response to the Ecuadorian government’s legitimate and legitimately worded complaint. It is clearly established international etiquette that, in times of peace, embassies are inviolable and no threats against that inviolability can be made.

    Reply
    • The idea of embassy sanctuary can only be upheld if the embassy nation has a treaty with its host nation. As no such treaty exists between the UK and Ecuador the UK is within its rights legally to enter the Ecuador embassy with an arrest and search warrant. The idea that Assange could be extradited from Sweden to the USA is nonsense the Swedish authorities has no plans whatsoever to involve the USA. It would easier to send Assange to the USA from the UK than from Sweden. Sweden only want to question Assange on rape accusations. However even if Assange isnt found guilty of being a rapist by the Swedish authorities. He is liable for arrest by breaking his UK bail conditions set by European law.

      Reply
    • Conor:So the fact that the President of Ecuador has granted Julian Assange asylum means nothing to you?

      Reply
    • He has only granted him Asylum in Ecuador itself. As Assange is several thousand miles away in London this is meaningless. The real irony is that Ecuador is quite a brutal state for journalists with very limited free speech. An Ecuadorian version of wikileaks would be impossible. Assange is using Ecuador as a proxy to avoid the legal process

      Reply
    • Where else would the President of Ecuador grant an asylum seeker asylum? [rolls eyes]

      Reply
    • mattoid 26/08/12 #

      I think you’re missing Conor’s point Paul…

      Reply
    • Conor is not making a point, he is making an assertion. He is asserting that “Ecuador is quite a brutal state for journalists with very limited free speech.”

      Funnily enough, Ecuador is ranked above the US as a more peaceful state.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

      Reply
    • Conor, you are stating that Ecuador suppresses journalism/media. This could not be further from the truth. A change us underway in Ecuador. The fact is the private media is owned by 6 families in Ecuador. This is a threat to democracy. These same six families are part of the elite and have massive business interests. There is a clear conflict of interest. Ecuador is establishing new regulations so that if you have business interests you are not allowed to own media interests. You have the same problem with media in Venezuela. There Chavez has repeatedly bring shown on be 15 to 25 points ahead in polls(a landslide victory) yet the private media is constantly reporting the upcoming election as too close to call. These are the same private media that supported Pinochet in power and did not report truth instead siding heavily with Pinochet government. So wake up Conor and do a bit of reading before you go making broadband comments like that one.

      Reply
  • Assange doesn’t really fall into any of the protected groups defined by the UN it seems more like he is seeking to avoid prosecution rather than persecution, whether that prosecution is at the behest of the USA is impossible to say. Sweden does not extradite people if they may face the death penalty. I think he is very naive if he thought he could publish all that sensitive stuff and get away with it. Britain didn’t seem so keen to go into the Libyan embassy when PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot or maybe I am being a little cynical. Basically they are a bunch of idiots and I don’t really care what they do

    Reply
    • mattoid 26/08/12 #

      They were legally powerless to enter the Libyan embassy Gareth – it was in response to the fact that they were legally obliged to stand back and watch Yvonne Fletcher’s murderer return freely to Libya that the 1987 law (that they are now threatening to use) was introduced.

      Reply
  • Fair enough but I don’t think the Ecuadorian embassy is being “seriously misused” and I wouldn’t be surprised if wiki leaker gets Ecuadorian citizenship followed by a diplomatic position which would mean he fell under diplomatic immunity rather than asylum seeking, this would make him untouchable under the Vienna convention which is used as a guide for the 1987 Act. Ps I still don’t really care. LOL

    Reply

Add New Comment