[image: Logo Venezuela Analysis] UNASUR Supports Ecuador over London Embassy Assault Threat
Aug 20th 2012, by Ewan Robertson / MINCI [image: UNASUR foreign ministers declared their solidarity with Ecuador in its diplomatic dispute with Britain (archive)] UNASUR foreign ministers declared their solidarity with Ecuador in its diplomatic dispute with Britain (archive) Mérida, 20th August 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) The Union of South American States (UNASUR) threw its support behind Ecuador in its diplomatic dispute with Britain over Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, after a meeting of UNASUR foreign ministers yesterday in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Last Thursday 16 August Ecuador granted Assange diplomatic asylum in its London embassy due to fears his human rights could be violated if extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault charges. The day before, Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patino read out a British diplomatic letter which informed the Ecuadorian government You need to be aware that there is a legal base that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the Embassy. Yesterday, foreign ministers of the twelve-member UNASUR bloc released a statement calling for respect for sovereignty and strict compliance with international treaties. The statement also noted that the ministers manifest their solidarity with and support for the Government of the Republic of Ecuador in light of the threat of the violation of the space of their diplomatic mission. Venezuelas foreign minister, Nicolas Maduro, declared the declaration of historic character, continuing that they [Britain] have threatened one of our brothers [Ecuador] and the difference now is that we have decided to be free, to live as united peoples and that brotherhood and solidarity are imposed. The minister also expressed his hope that the Organisation of American States (OAS), which includes the United States as a member, would be able to agree a similar declaration of support for Ecuador in the dispute. Below is the complete statement agreed by UNASUR foreign ministers yesterday. *Statement* The Council of Foreign Ministers of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), at an extraordinary meeting in the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador, on August 19, 2012, consider: That the Ecuadorian minister of foreign relations, commerce and trade informed the Council that the citizen Julian Assange requested political asylum at the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London on June 19, 2012, an issue regarding which the governments of Ecuador, the United Kingdom and Sweden have sustained diplomatic conversations surrounding the request for Assanges extradition and his request for asylum; That Ecuador was analysing the request for asylum in accordance with the principles of human rights protections and international law; That on August 15 the Government of the Republic of Ecuador publicly announced having received from the United Kingdom an aide memoire threatening to take actions to arrest Mr. Assange at the current location of the Embassy and invoking its domestic law in the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987; That according to article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 of which the United Kingdom is a signatory that The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission, and that The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution; That according to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, States should abstain from resorting to the threat or use of force or acting in any other manner that is incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations in their international relations, and should solve their differences peacefully; That the United Nations Security Council, in its Press Release SC/10463 dated November 29, 2011, condemned in the strongest terms violations of diplomatic immunity and recalled the fundamental principle of the inviolability of the diplomatic missions and consular offices of receiving States in relation to what is established in the 1961 Vienna Convention of on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations. *The Council of Foreign Ministers of UNASUR hereby*: 1. Manifest their solidarity with and support for the Government of the Republic of Ecuador in light of the threat of the violation of the space of their diplomatic mission. 2. Reiterate the sovereign right of states to grant asylum. 3. Emphatically condemn the threat of the use of force among States and reiterate the full validity of the principles enshrined in international law, respect for sovereignty and strict compliance with international treaties. 4. Reaffirm the basic principle of the inviolability of the spaces of diplomatic missions and consular offices and the obligation of receiver States, in relation to what is established in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations. 5. Reaffirm the principle of international law, by virtue of which domestic law may not be invoked in order to fail to comply with an international law, as is reflected in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. 6. Reiterate the validity of the institutions of asylum and refuge that protect the human rights of persons that consider their life or physical integrity to be threatened. 7. Urge the Parties to continue a dialogue and direct negotiation to procure a mutually acceptable solution in accordance with international law. Guayaquil, Ecuador UNASUR / August 19, 2012 *Venezuelanalysis.com note: The members of the UNASUR are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela.* ------------------------------ *Source URL (retrieved on 20/08/2012 - 7:09pm):* http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7188 ---------------------------- http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/ Document Friday: Escape to a Foreign Embassy August 17, 2012 tags: assange <http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/assange/>, Belgian Embassy <http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/belgian-embassy/>, Chen Guangcheng <http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/chen-guangcheng/>, department of state <http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/department-of-state/>, Document Friday <http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/document-friday/>, Documents<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/documents/>, Ecuador <http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/ecuador/>, guatemala<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/guatemala/>, Julian Assange <http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/julian-assange/>, London<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/london/>, National Security Archive<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/national-security-archive/>, United States <http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/tag/united-states/> by Emily Willard <http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/author/ewillard/> *Under what circumstances is a countrys sovereign territory not its sovereign territory?* Recent news about the use of foreign embassies as places of refuge has caught my attention as it brings up fascinating nuances of diplomatic law <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17905985> and international political protocol. <http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/20120430_chen-guangcheng_39.jpg> Chen Guangcheng, a Chinese human rights lawyer who sought refuge in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing earlier this year. The two most notable recent cases being that of Chinese human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng<http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-interview-with-chinese-activist-chen-guangcheng-a-831702.html>who spent 6 days in the U.S. embassy in Beijing and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18652422> who is currently camping out in Ecuadors embassy in London. Eventually, Chen Guangcheng was offered a fellowship at New York University, and the Chinese government allowed him to travel to the U.S.<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18135039>with his family to accept the position because he was facing persecution from the Chinese government for his human rights work. Just yesterday, the Ecuador government granted Assange asylum<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=158909419>because Assange faces a serious threat of unjust prosecution at the hands of U.S. officials.[1]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftn1>As of today, it is still unclear <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623> whether or not British officials will allow Assange to leave the country. All of this has reminded me about an amazing story of a Guatemalan labor union leader, Álvaro René Sosa, who escaped capture and sought refuge in the residence of the Belgian Ambassador in Guatemala City in March of 1984. Todays spotlight document is a Department of State Cable from March 14, 1984, that recounts the harrowing incident. To briefly set the context, from 1960-1996, Guatemala was in the middle of an intense internal armed conflict in which approximately 40,000 people were disappeared, and nearly 200,000 were killed. The UN Truth Commission report, Memory of Silence<http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ceh/report/english/toc.html>concluded that during the conflict, the Guatemalan security forces committed acts of genocide against the indigenous Mayan people. In the late 1970s and early 1980s right-wing death squads closely linked to government security forces<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB363/docs/Document%206%20-%20GU00995.pdf>wreaked havoc among the urban political dissident groups and the leftist movement. In February 1984, about a month before Álvaro tested foreign embassy sovereignty laws, a U.S. embassy memo<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB363/docs/Document%207%20-%20GU01000.pdf>warned of a new wave of violence and death squad activity. On March 11, 1984, Álvaro was captured by a group of men while he was walking on the street in Zone 11 of Guatemala City; he recognized one of the men to be a Guatemalan military official.[2]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftn2>Álvaro had become one of the 40,000 disappeared. However, four days later, on March 13,Guatemala security forces were driving Álvaro around the city so he could identify other political dissidents for the security forces to abduct. When the vehicle stopped to attempt to capture other suspected dissidents, Álvaro jumped out of the vehicle<http://gt.globedia.com/guatemala-martirez-justicia>and over the low wall of the residence of the Belgian Ambassador while his captors fired at him, wounding him <http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/doc-crop-1.jpeg> excerpt #1 of Department of State cable recounting Sosas daring escape to the residence of the Belgian Ambassador. <http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/doc-crop-2.jpeg> excerpt #2 <http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/doc-crop-3.jpeg> excerpt #3 of Department of State cable recounting Sosas daring escape. See the full DOCUMENT here<http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/cable.pdf> . The Belgian Ambassador was able to secure him safe passage to the hospital to undergo surgery on his gunshot wounds; he was also treated for injuries sustained from torture that was a part of his interrogation during his detention.[3]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftn3>It ended up being the Venezuelan Embassy that provided Álvaro with assistance in leaving Guatemala[4]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftn4>because the Belgian Embassy did not have and asylum agreement with Guatemala. On March 21, eight days after the incident, Álvaro was able to leave Guatemala for Canada where he was granted political asylum. Venezuela, Ecuador, and Mexico had also offered him political asylum.[5]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftn5>Two years ago, Álvaro returned to Guatemala to accept a formal apology and pardon from the Guatemalan government.[6]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftn6> The story does not end there. In 1999, an anonymous source gave the National Security Archive a secret Guatemalan military document, the *Diario Militar (Military Logbook)<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/guatemala/logbook/index.htm> * that lists the capture and fate of over 183 of Guatemalas disappeared. In the process of analyzing the *Diario Militar*, National Security Archive analysts used declassified US documents and human rights reporting to prove the authenticity of the *Diario. *This Department of State Cable was used to corroborate the validity of the *Dario Militar* because Álvaros capture and escape is listed in the Logbook. <http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/dm-entry.jpeg> Sosas entry, an excerpt from the in the Diario Militar. The handwritten text in pencil says that on 13 March 1984 Sosa escaped to the Belgian Embassy, and that on 21 March 1984, he left Guatemala for Canada. See full *Diario Militar *(Military Logbook) here.<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB15/dossier-color.pdf> The fact that Álvaro was able to escape and bring himself back from being one of the 40,000 disappeared was a miraculous feat. His testimony to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights provided invaluable information about the Guatemalan governments practices of forced disappearances, interrogation, torture, and extra-judicial execution. He was able to identify other victims in the detention facility, enabling families to discern the fates of their loved ones, including labor leader Amancio Villatoro <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB363/index.htm>.[7]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftn7>Had it not been for the diplomatic laws regarding embassy sovereignty, asylum agreements, and the good will of other nations, Álvaro would have remained one of the 40,000 disappeared, and we wouldnt have this amazing story today. ** The document featured in this Document Friday is available in the National Security Archives published collection, Death Squads, Guerrilla War, Covert Operations, and Genocide: Guatemala and the United States, 1954-1999 <http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/collections/content/GU/intro.jsp>. The collection is available by subscription, so be sure to check your local or university library system for access. ------------------------------ [1]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftnref1> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=158909419 [2]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftnref2> http://gt.globedia.com/guatemala-martirez-justicia [3]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftnref3>Amnesty International, Guatemala: The Human Rights Record (London, Amnesty International Publications, 1987), pgs. 119-120, 126 [4]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftnref4>Based on interview with Ana Lucia Cuevas, director of the film Echo of the Pain of the Many<http://www.facebook.com/pages/El-Eco-del-Dolor-de-Mucha-GenteTo-Echo-the-Pain-of-the-Many/119073521447246>, and personal survivor of the conflict. [5]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftnref5> http://gt.globedia.com/guatemala-martirez-justicia [6]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftnref6>Based on interview with Ana Lucia Cuevas, director of the film Echo of the Pain of the Many<http://www.facebook.com/pages/El-Eco-del-Dolor-de-Mucha-GenteTo-Echo-the-Pain-of-the-Many/119073521447246>, and personal survivor of the conflict. [7]<http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/document-friday-escape-to-a-foreign-embassy/#_ftnref7>Amnesty International, Guatemala: The Human Rights Record (London, Amnesty International Publications, 1987), pgs. 119-120 --------------- http://www.bloggingsbyboz.com/2012/08/assange-and-other-asylum-cases.html#!/2012/08/assange-and-other-asylum-cases.html Aug 16 <http://www.bloggingsbyboz.com/2012/08/assange-and-other-asylum-cases.html> Assange and other asylum cases<http://www.bloggingsbyboz.com/2012/08/assange-and-other-asylum-cases.html> <http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=8381038&postID=2241146031273767599&from=pencil> Ecuador has called for every acronym in the hemisphere (OAS, UNASUR, ALBA, UN, etc.) to hold immediate meetings regarding the Julian Assange asylum case and the issue of its embassy in the UK. Leaving aside the specifics of that case for a moment, one of the secondary consequences of this event is that it could bring up questions about a whole host of other recent high profile political asylum, embassy refuge, and extradition cases around the hemisphere that have occasionally impacted bilateral relations. Some examples from the past five years (all very much simplified, the details in all these cases are quite complicated): - Manual Rosales, the presidential candidate for the Venezuelan opposition in 2006, was granted asylum in Peru after the Venezuelan government brought corruption charges against him. - Peru has also granted asylum to a number of former Bolivian government ministers who are wanted by that government. - Former Bolivian President Goni Sanchez de Lozada is still living free in the US, in spite of Bolivia's extradition requests. - Venezuela is still deciding about Julian Conrado. The Colombian government wants Conrado extradited from Venezuela due to his links with the FARC and involvement in crimes and terrorism. Conrado's supporters say he's just a journalist and musician who sympathizes with the group. - Former Peruvian President Fujimori tried to hide in Chile, but was eventually extradited to Peru to be tried for his crimes. - Nicaragua granted political asylum to Alberto Pizango, the Peruvian indigenous leader who was wanted by the government for his role during the Bagua conflict. After he was given asylum, the government granted him safe passage from the Nica embassy out of the country. He returned to Peru 11 months later and was arrested. - Former Honduran President Zelaya hid in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa for months during the 2009 coup. Brazil never officially granted him asylum, but did allow him to remain in the embassy for several months until the government of President Lobo took office. Perhaps the biggest impact of the Assange debate could be on an ongoing political asylum case in Bolivia. Senator Roger Pinto has been living in the Brazilian embassy in La Paz for 80 days, having been granted asylum by Brazil but not offered safe passage by Bolivia. The Bolivian government wants to try him on various corruption charges. Pinto says it is a political persecution related to his revealing information about ties between the government and drug traffickers (the fact he's a target for having revealed information about the government makes the parallels even more significant). He also has produced evidence that he has received credible death threats. For ALBA to credibly argue that the UK must offer safe passage to Assange, Bolivia should relent and offer safe passage to Pinto. Brazil could make this a condition at UNASUR in exchange for its support of Ecuador. It's a case to watch, a sideshow in the bigger process that's being watched internationally. In every instance, you'll hear, "But this case is different because....". Yes, yes, every asylum case is different. Yet, there are similarities. In every case, one side claims there have been various crimes committed that must be prosecuted while the other claims political persecution. Balancing justice for crimes against potential abuse of power by governments is tough. Sure, we all think we know it when we see it when it comes to asylum cases, but many people disagree about the cases listed above and others. It would be good for the hemisphere to have the broader debate about political asylum. When should it be allowed, when should it be denied, on what evidence do we differentiate the cases, and what happens when countries disagree about a specific case? Posted 4 days ago by boz<http://www.blogger.com/profile/13233148632004720002> Labels: Ecuador <http://www.bloggingsbyboz.com/search/label/Ecuador> latinamerica <http://www.bloggingsbyboz.com/search/label/latinamerica> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
