OAS urges Britain, Ecuador to resolve Assange row

to storm the embassy.

But the resolution was reworded after the UK insisted it had made no threat ...

The United States withdrew its opposition to the resolution after the text was amended ...

The representative of the Dominican Republic had questioned why the meeting was called since the row over Mr Assange was not going to be solved there, especially not with any grandstanding by Ecuador ...


24 August 2012
Julian Assange row: OAS gives Ecuador partial support
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19377110

I can parse just as well as you:



http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-67

is a longstanding and sound notion

But the ultimate object of the diplomatic immunities is to facilitate diplomacy itself, which in turn is desired as lubricating relations between various nations. With diplomatic immunities also comes an obligation for the immunized diplomats not to abuse the privilege by simply disregarding the laws of their host

That one country might send a diplomat, representing it, to a diplomatic outpost, in another country, is a desirable state-of-affairs, but it is not an absolute right. The host country is not obliged to recognize the diplomat indefinitely: if the diplomat becomes noxious to the host, the host has freedom to withdraw recognition and expel the diplomat. Similarly, the host country is not actually obliged to recognized to recognize a diplomatic mission indefinitely: if a mission becomes noxious to the host, the host country would be quite within its rights, for example, to ask its guest to close and quit its mission by some date certain, and the guest would have no right to ignore the request. Naturally, such outcomes are not preferred, as they limit the diplomatic intercourse of the countries involved, but no violation of international law would be involved in that

Many of us will be sympathetic to Latin American resentments about their sometimes abusive historical treatments by the Colossus of the North; and in particular, we may understand why Quito enjoys its own current stance. But London extends diplomatic immunities to Quito, with sole aim of easing contact with Quito, not with the aim providing Quito a stage for gesturing angrily at Washington -- and once Quito begins to interfere with local court rulings and London's legal extradition obligations to Stockholm, unless London finds there a very good reason indeed, London is entirely entitled to wonder if Quito has become a boorish guest, and London may consider, silently or aloud, the full range of its options. And, as already noted, London does indeed have options, beyond merely tolerating the behavior of Quito, though, in the end, of course, everyone will prefer that London not exercise the most extreme options, such as cutting ties to Quito

"the ultimate object of the diplomatic immunities is to facilitate diplomacy itself, which in turn is desired as lubricating relations between various nations."

In this case Assange claims that he is afraid of extradition to the US (whether or not we agree is beside the point). Ecuador agrees that this is a valid fear and provides him with asylum. Some may feel that Ecuador is "grandstanding", regardless, the UK feels that its obligation to turn over Assange to Sweden takes precedence and they threaten to invade the embassy based on a domestic law. OAS then stands beside Ecuador and cries fowl.

If the UK feels that Ecuador has become noxious to the point that they are interfering with justice as it relates to Sweden, then I suppose that they could expel Ecuador, but I certainly doubt it would be worth it over what amounts to a rather weak rape charge.

Why is Ecuador supporting this "grandstanding" in the first place? The unspoken, underlying truth of the matter is that the US committed egregious war crimes under the Bush administration and Assange has exposed some of this. He has become a threat to the right-wing driven imperialist forces that also pose a threat to the left-leaning democracies of South America. If diplomats could begin to discuss some of the underlying issues, democracy (as symbolized by the OAS) may be better off.

... The resolution, which Ecuador hailed as "a triumph for small countries" in the face of "imperial powers," was passed by consensus after a five-hour debate in Washington. Only 12 foreign ministers of 34 who had been invited attended the meeting ...

At the start of the meeting, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino insisted that Britain‘s "vulgar threats" constitute proof of London‘s "arrogance with relation to a geographically small country, but one that is huge in terms of dignity and sovereignty" ...

Britain has insisted it made no threat. It says it merely reminded Ecuador of the legal status of diplomatic premises on its territory ...

In the document that was approved, the OAS rejected "any attempt that might put at risk the inviolability of the premises of diplomatic missions" and highlighted "the obligation of all states not to invoke provisions of their domestic law to justify noncompliance with their international obligations" ...

http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/correction-lead-ecuador-gets-only-mild-support-from-oas-on-assangeby-silvia-ayuso-dpaeds-corrects-us-position-on-assange-in-graf-5-epa-photos_234114.html

and other more centrist Latin American nations will fall in line, possibly concerned about political and economic ramifications. Canada being a member of the British Commonwealth and the US still debating whether to go after Assange for espionage.

Here's an explanation from the point of view of more repressive regimes:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=/data/editorial/2012/August/editorial_August53.xml§ion=editorial