I've commented on the case of Assange before,
here and
here. And the case still rumbles on. Currently Assange is trying to claim asylum in
Ecuador via their embassy in London, and in a rather unusual and controversial move, the UK Government is threaten to revoke the status of the Ecuadorean Embassy in order to arrest him - using a little known law passed in 1987 in response to the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher.
Carl Gardner, a former government lawyer, said the law was specifically
designed to stop acts of terrorism of other breaches of international law
within a foreign embassy, which Ecuador was not guilty of.
The fallout to Britain's diplomatic reputation should such actions be taken would be enormous and hugely damaging:
Sir Tony Brenton, who served as the United Kingdom's ambassador to Russia
between 2004 and 2008, said "arbitrarily" overturning the status
of the building where Mr Assange has taken shelter to avoid extradition,
would make life 'impossible' for British diplomats overseas.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "I think the Foreign Office have
slightly overreached themselves here, for both practical and legal reasons.
"The Government itself has no interest in creating a situation where it
is possible for governments everywhere to arbitrarily cut off diplomatic
immunity. It would be very bad."
So why would they even contemplate creating such a situation? Well a clue can be found in the
document presented to Ecuador by British diplomats in Quito (my emphasis):
We are aware, and surprised by media reports in the last 24 hours,
that Ecuador is about to take a decision and proposes to grant asylum to
Mr. Assange. The reports quote official sources. We note that the
(Ecuadorean) President (Rafael Correa) has stated that no decision has
yet been made.
We are concerned, if true, that this might undermine our efforts
to agree a joint text setting out the positions of both countries,
allowing Mr. Assange to leave the Embassy.
As we have previously set out, we must meet our legal obligations
under the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the
Extradition Act 2003, to arrest Mr. Assange and extradite him to Sweden.
We remain committed to working with you amicably to resolve this
matter. But we must be absolutely clear this means that should we
receive a request for safe passage for Mr. Assange, after granting
asylum, this would be refused, in line with our legal obligations.
Thus the priority is we must meet our
EU obligations above and beyond our own country's interests even if it means international ridicule, condemnation and isolation. Happy days.
