By Eva Golinger
August 2014
Telesur English
Two years ago, one of the most controversial figures
of the age of cyberspace appeared on the doorstep of the Ecuadorian Embassy in
London. On the verge of losing an appeal in the British courts that could open
the door to his extradition to Sweden and then later, the United States, where
a secret Grand Jury had convened to indict him, Julian Assange sought refuge in
Ecuador’s modest Embassy flat. During the following two months, the Ecuadorian
government studiously reviewed his case, calling in experts to discuss and
debate the duties and risks Ecuador faced in granting the asylum petition.
On August 16, 2012, Ecuador’s Foreign Minister,
Ricardo Patiño, announced that his country would grant Assange diplomatic
asylum, a concept enshrined in the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum of 1954,
also known as the Convention of Caracas. The British government refused to recognize
this status and initially threatened to violate Ecuador’s sovereignty by
entering into the Embassy and arresting Assange. After strong protest from the
Ecuadorian government and outcry from Latin American nations, England refrained
from causing an international uproar by forcing entry into the Embassy, and
instead chose to maintain a prominent police presence surrounding the building,
impeding Assange’s escape.
Two years later, the Assange case is at a standstill. Despite his legal team’s efforts to end the unsubstantiated persecution against him from Sweden, where no formal charges have materialized, an extradition request still remains to bring him to Stockholm for “questioning”. The British government has made clear it would extradite Assange to Sweden if they could detain him. While no public extradition request has been issued from the United States to Sweden for Assange, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that a Grand Jury may have already indicted him in a US court, on charges, including espionage and/or aiding and abetting the enemy, that could result in his long-term imprisonment were he subjected to a trial. This well-founded fear of political persecution has reinforced Ecuador’s decision to maintain his political asylum.
In 2013, when Foreign Minister Patiño visited Assange
in the Embassy on the one-year anniversary of his confinement, Ecuador
initiated an effort to create a bilateral working group with the British
government to find a solution to the situation. To date, no movement has been
made in the group and England has refused to discuss the matter further.
Recently, during Foreign Minister Patiño’s second visit to see Assange on
August 16, 2014, the British Foreign Office issued a statement claiming they
were “committed to finding solution”, yet only according to their vision of the
outcome: "We remain as
committed as ever to reaching a diplomatic solution to this situation. We are
clear that our laws must be followed and Mr Assange should be extradited to
Sweden. As ever we look to Ecuador to help bring this difficult, and costly,
residence to an end." In other words, the British government sees no other
solution than Assange’s extradition. Their unwavering, rigid position leaves no
opportunity for diplomacy or creative problem-solving, which is what this case
needs.
The Ecuadorian
government has reiterated its support for Assange and has made clear that their
country is bound by international law to maintain his asylum. As Minister
Patiño has affirmed, there is no return policy on asylees who are still
subjected to exactly the same conditions as when the asylum was granted. The
persecution remains, and there are still no charges of any kind against
Assange. Ecuador, a small nation of 15 million inhabitants with bananas and
beautiful roses as its main exports, has remained defiant in the face of
pressure from England, Sweden and their biggest ally, the United States.
Two years
enclosed in the Ecuadorian Embassy, a narrow flat with just a handful of rooms,
has taken its toll on Julian Assange. While he continues to work from his small
space inside the Embassy, and his organization Wikileaks has not ceased
publishing important documents exposing the abuses and illegal acts of powerful
interests, the lack of sunlight, fresh air and regular exercise have obviously
decreased his quality of life and impacted his health. Despite his confinement
and separation from close friends and family, his spirits remain high, as was
apparent during the visit with Minister Patiño, and he is optimistic about
changes to a law in the UK that potentially could lead to his freedom.
Known
within political circles as the “Assange Act”, an amendment was made in early
2014 to the Extradition Act 2003 in the British parliament. Resulting from
discontent and discomfort over the legal limbo Julian has been in for the past
four years - even two years before receiving asylum from Ecuador, Assange had
been on house arrest in England, pending potential extradition to Sweden - several British MPs began debating a
substantive change to the law that would impede a future Assange situation from
happening to someone else.
The
amendment is included in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
(not the most socially-friendly name), in Chapter 12, Part 12. It specifically
states that “Extradition is barred if no prosecution decision has been made in
the requesting territory”, as in Assange’s situation. If the country requesting
extradition has not yet charged or decided to try the individual being
requested, than the United Kingdom will not extradite. This is exactly the case
of Julian Assange. The Swedish prosecution has not decided to try him yet or
even formally charge him, and the extradition request is merely based on the
desire to “question” him about certain allegations he may or may not be
involved in.
In the
parliamentary debates in the House of Commons leading up to the passage of the
extradition act amendment, specific references to Assange’s case were made.
According to the parliamentarians, the new clause, amending the extradition act
of 2003, “seeks to ensure that people are not extradited when it is not certain
they will be charged, so that they do not sit in a prison for months on end”.
Reference was also made to the case of a British citizen, Andrew Symeou, who
was extradited to Greece for questioning and remained in inhumane prison
conditions for over ten months with no charges against him. In Julian Assange’s
case, the debate concluded, “where a decision to charge and try is not taken,
extradition cannot take place. People will not be left in limbo...”
Julian’s
legal team will need to challenge this law in order for it to be applied to his
case, since at present it does not appear to be retroactive. But there is no
denying that this change in the law would impede Assange from being extradited
to Sweden were it to have been in place previously. Ecuador’s Foreign Minister
made reference to the amended law as a potential opening for dialogue with the
UK government in the case. Ecuador has also offered to allow Swedish
authorities question Assange inside the Embassy, or via videoconference, all to
no avail. It seems as though the only parties interested in finding a solution
to this situation are the government of Ecuador and Julian Assange. The Brits
and the Swedes have done everything possible to stall and stonewall the case.
Foreign
Minister Patiño has stated previously that Ecuador could bring the case before
the International Court of Justice in the Hague, or the United Nations. The
affronts to Ecuador’s sovereignty, the failure to recognize the asylum granted
to Julian Assange and the refusal to provide him with safe passage to
Ecuadorian territory are all violations of international law. Julian’s human
rights are also affected. The inability to fully enjoy his right to asylum and
the confining conditions he has been forced to remain in for two years, under
threat by arrest by British authorities right outside the Embassy doors and
windows, have subjected him to cruel and inhumane punishment. Were he to
experience a medical emergency and need hospital attention, the British
government has already made clear it would arrest him.
Both
Julian Assange and Ecuador have taken on the most powerful world interests,
despite the dangers, threats and consequences of their actions. Foreign Minister
Ricardo Patiño and President Rafael Correa have made clear that Ecuador will
stand strong in its decision to grant Assange asylum under international law,
and they will not bow to pressure and intimidation from anyone. The Assange
case goes beyond just simple political asylum and issues of sovereignty. It is
matter of principle in a time in which information and secrecy have become ever
more the tools of the most powerful. Justice must be done for those who have
sacrified their liberties to warn us of these dangers.
