In London, the Olympic village may have
pulled up stakes, but the circus surrounding Julian Assange
looks bound for the long haul. As you may have
read, Ecuador has granted asylum to the embattled Wikileaks
founder, who is wanted by British authorities for extradition to
Sweden, where he awaits sexual assault charges.
Assange has been holed up in the modest stucco-fronted, red
brick building in the exclusive Knightsbridge area since June
19th. His lawyer
dismissed allegations of rape and assault as “consensual sex.”
Assange has repeatedly claimed he’s been incriminated as part of a
“smear campaign” against him and the Wikileaks brand. The two women
he’s accused of abusing tell a
very different story.
Ecuador’s decision to grant diplomatic sanctuary was celebrated
by his supporters, but did not dissuade the British Foreign Office
from its plans to execute its obligation to Sweden – which demands
extradition of the Wikileaker to the legal climes of the
Scandinavian Peninsula.
Per the Christian Science Monitor, Ecuador’s proposal
of political asylum speaks to its current government’s “not so warm
relations with Washington.” That’s putting it mildly.
Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño has been most vocal on
Assange’s behalf, stating his belief that Assange faces threat of
“political persecution.” If I had to take a wild guess, I’d suppose
that’s ambassadorial doublespeak for “a hasty extradition to the
United States to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, undoubtedly
absent due process or fair trial.”
According to a
report in the WaPo, Patiño told a gaggle of reporters
in Quito, “It is not impossible that he would be treated in a cruel
manner, condemned to life in prison, or even given the death
penalty […] Ecuador is convinced that his procedural rights have
been violated.” One presumes he’s not talking about Sweden.
As if things weren’t already interesting enough, the
Post reports that:
“Ecuadoran officials revealed Wednesday night that they had
received a written warning from Britain saying that British police
could enter the Ecuadoran Embassy to arrest Assange under the
Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, a little-known piece of
legislation passed in 1987.”
The letter reportedly
reads:
“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.”
Naturally, Patiño
portrayed this caveat as “a threat by the United Kingdom…that
they could storm our embassy in London if Ecuador refuses to hand
in Julian Assange,” before channeling protocols of the
Vienna Convention and Britain’s
colonial legacy.
I care not for Mr. Assange, his contrived iconoclasty or his
distaste for my country. I can only “armchair analyze” a man whose
narcissism hints at the underlying sociopathy necessary to force
oneself on a woman, nearly half one’s age.
However, to
quote the UK’s former ambassador to Russia, Tony Brenton:
“If we live in a world where governments can arbitrarily revoke
immunity and go into embassies then the life of our diplomats and
their ability to conduct normal business in places like Moscow
where I was and North Korea becomes close to impossible.”
Well said.
I imagine this opinion won’t be popular, but as unpleasant as
Assange may be, neither his criminal trial nor incarceration
remotely merit a potential collapse of consular order. Nor should
he be afforded the outpouring of misplaced support his diplomatic
martyrdom would undoubtedly earn him from opponents of America and
Great Britain.
Rather, I must hope the Brits decide to wait him out, and
barring that, he exhausts the years, confined to his ornate
cell…his personal Tower of London.
