adminBefore then, it was unthinkable that anyone, apart from pro-establishment functionaries could gain access to classified US embassy files and publicise them. At first those who know how the US government maintains a stranglehold on the computer dismissed Wikileaks as mere strategic, intelligence leaks by Washington to influence world opinion.
They have a history of using their media to marshal public opinion in many countries and on many issues, so no one believed them at first. A string of documents are out in the open for free reading, with promises for more on the WikiLeaks website.
The man behind WikiLeaks, Julian Assange is now being prosecuted and persecuted in what some observers argue is a way to punish him for his actions. He is fighting moves to extradite him to Sweden to stand trial for an alleged sex offence. He denies the charge and feels that he might not receive a fair trial in Stockholm. This week, the man recognised by many as a freedom of expression and freedom of the Press campaigner, was granted asylum by an unlikely country, little Ecuador. He immediately moved into the Ecuadorian embassy in London, ahead of a potential transfer to Ecuador. What followed after that has angered and surprised many — a threat by London to storm the embassy relying on the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987. The law allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Assange for breaching the terms of his bail.
Britain knows, as every sane person does that storming the embassy is illegal under international law and international law is superior to domestic law.
It is incompetent for the Foreign Office to seek to rely on a local law on a matter like this because the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations clearly states that embassies are sovereign territories and are above domestic laws. An invasion of the embassy, if it indeed is carried out, would constitute an invasion of Ecuador. This would embarrass London, which like Washington; claim to be the ultimate defenders of human rights and the rule of law. It would confirm to us that human rights and freedoms are, in essence only a mirage, which the West parrots as virtues only when they coincide with their own positions.
The sovereign decision that Ecuador has done is very significant in many ways, one of which is to test London’s willingness to abide by international law and its international obligations above its bi-lateral commitments.
“In a communication this (Thursday) morning to the government of Ecuador, the UK threatened to forcefully enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London and arrest Julian Assange,” WikiLeaks said in a statement posted on its website.
“The UK claims the power to do so under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.
“This claim is without basis. By midnight, two hours prior to the time of this announcement, the embassy had been surrounded by police, in a menacing show of force. Any transgression against the sanctity of the embassy is a unilateral and shameful act, and a violation of the Vienna Convention, which protects embassies worldwide. This threat is designed to preempt Ecuador’s imminent decision on whether it will grant Julian Assange political asylum, and to bully Ecuador into a decision that is agreeable to the United Kingdom and its allies. A threat of this nature is a hostile and extreme act, which is not proportionate to the circumstances, and an unprecedented assault on the rights of asylum seekers worldwide. We draw attention to the fact that the United Nations General Assembly has unanimously declared in Resolution 2312 (1967) that ‘the grant of asylum . . . is a peaceful and humanitarian act and that, as such, it cannot be regarded as unfriendly by any other State’.”
The UK and US are well known for their provocative policy of offering protection, financial and moral support to figures held as dissidents in some countries. For instance, in September last year, the US reached a $5,6 billion arms deal with Taiwan, a territory that China regards as part of it which can be seized back by force, if necessary. Recently, the US had a spat with China over a dissident Chinese lawyer, Chen Guangcheng, whom it (US) gave asylum. In November 2006, Britain offered asylum to Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian intelligence man who had fled from court prosecution in Russia. Some observers argue that the speed with which he was granted asylum suggests that he tried, or actually did, sell some intelligence information to Britain.
When others do the same, they are hounded, ostracised and held without trial like Bradley Manning, in detention without trial for over 800 days. The US accuses the former American soldier of being the mole who gave Assange the secret files.
Online Reporter