Yeah, I'm pretty surprised that Her Majesty's government hasn't already raided the Ecuadorian embassy, taken Assange into custody, and handed him over to the Swedes. Ecuador is a pretty insignificant country, and it's not like they'd catch any flak from the American government for such a move.
The diplomatic fallout in the event of a raid would be huge. There was a meeting of all foreign ministers of South America who issued a joint statement to condemn the UK for threatening to raid the embassy.
Unless of course you're a powerful British business leader with business interests in South America, in which case the relationships would be pretty darn important and you'd be communicating that to your MP.
For example, British Petroleum has significant interests in South America.
You're suggesting that England - one of the most powerful countries in the world - should throw away all ties with an entire continent of countries, just so they can arrest a man to be questioned about sexual assault allegations?
Yes, it's obvious the real reason they want to get to him, but come on.
...because when you have Argentina grandstanding over the Falkland Islands the best thing to do is piss off everyone else in South America. The UK needs all the goodwill it can get in the region.
If they did that, every other country in the world would be within their rights to enter British embassies and detain people they don't like. That would not be a wise move
"Thatcher—who was kept apprised of the situation by Whitelaw—determined that British law would be applied to the embassy, despite the Vienna Convention, under which the embassy is considered Iranian soil."
That building had been completely taken over by non-Iranians. Even still, the British didn't enter it until the hostage-takers began executing the Iranians.
"Three further shots were fired during the course of the imam's conversation with Oan. Oan announced that a hostage had been killed, and the rest would die in 30 minutes unless his demands were met. A few minutes later, Lavasani's body was dumped out of the front door."
Considering they were at the time holding 52 American hostages in the US embassy in Tehran, the Iranians couldn't credibly complain about the British rescue operation representing a violation of their rights under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
I guess I don't think that precedent is going to generalize to many other situations.
In all practical terms, the Ecuadorian authorities expect their embassy to be inviolable. It is this expectation and their insistence on this expectation that complicates this matter to no end. It is simply not in British interests to be seen dismissing this expectation as unimportant. My personal view is that a deal should be possible that is acceptable to both Assange and Ecuador, to end this stalemate. Her Majesty's diplomatic representation in Ecuador should be able to make a compelling proposal that saves the day and the face of everyone involved.
> It is simply not in British interests to be seen dismissing this expectation as unimportant.
Maybe that's understating it a bit.
The United Kingdom itself has embassies all over the world, filled with important British people and often in places where they might not be uniformly liked. The British have far more to lose by a breakdown of diplomatic protections than the Ecuadorians do.
What an excessively bad idea as well as a diplomatic gaffe! I am pretty surprised that Her Majesty's government has not been able to negotiate a deal that is acceptable to both Assange and the Ecuador final authority on their involvement in this matter. Assange may want to close the case too. There are offers possible that he will accept.
The British government has no authority to negotiate. It is not up to them to talk to Assange. The UK has legally binding treaty obligations to enforce the European Arrest Warrant that Sweden issued.
It is up to Sweden, not the UK, to decide whether it wants to negotiate or not.
I'm pretty sure they also have legally binding treaty obligations not to enter the embassy, and I guess it would be a question for some international law experts, but from the months of no change it appears to me that this treaty obligation trumps the treaty obligation to arrest him.
